HAM Radio 3/hamradioversion3.0examsandprograms1992.iso/news/ih91270a/ih91272.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-04-05 | 33KB

From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!info-hams-relay Fri Apr  5 23:00:57 1991 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.64/waf)
    via UUCP; Fri, 05 Apr 91 23:00:42 EST
    for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com id aa09861; Fri, 5 Apr 91 23:00:54 GMT
Received: from ucsd.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
    (5.61/UUNET-shadow-mx) id AA03537; Fri, 5 Apr 91 16:08:41 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA13764
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Fri, 5 Apr 91 11:23:46 -0800 for nixbur!schroeder.pad
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA13676
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Fri, 5 Apr 91 11:23:07 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -finfo-hams-relay info-hams-list
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri,  5 Apr 91 11:23:02 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V91 #272
To: [e-mail]


Info-Hams Digest            Fri,  5 Apr 91       Volume 91 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
                      Broadcast ID Requirements?
                           Iambic? (2 msgs)
                            Iambic Keying
                      Icom IC-W2A Frequency Mod
                      Info-Hams Digest V91 #271
                     Large 110->220 Transformers.
                         Licensing Philosophy
                        Licensing Philosophy?
                Real info on scanner situation wanted
                   STS-37 SAREX Operating Schedule
                             Ultrasonics.
                       Working with Phillystran

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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: 5 Apr 91 16:22:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Broadcast ID Requirements?
To: [e-mail]

What are the current legal requirements for IDing from broadcast stations,
especially TV stations (including LPTV, translators, relays, etc.)?

Here in St. Louis, there is a new station (at least I just discovered it
last weekend) on channel 18. It relays the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting
Network) religious service, and every time I've listened at the hour or
half-hour, hoping to see an ID with the local call letters or hear a
voice-over announcment, especially wanting to learn just where their
transmitter site is, there has been absolutely *nothing*. There's a
TBN generic spot at those times, and they often sloppily cut off the
end of their own spot when the next gospel-huckster show starts up.

Are they in violation of some reg by not giving a clear local-station
ID at those times, or is there some "out" for such relay-only broadcasters
that lets them ID only at sign-on/sign-off times, or not even then?

If they are really this new, maybe they are operating in some sort of "test"
mode, and have looser ID'ing requirements during that period. Could this
be the case?

By the by, if any of the TV-station engineers out there on the net have
access to current TV-broadcast references, could you see if channel 7, a
LPTV station that was on the air here in St. Louis a while back, is still
active?  I used to get their signal weakly but readably, but it
disappeared and I don't know if they went off the air, changed their
antenna in such a way that reduced their signal at my location, or what...
Also, channel 21 has come and gone, carrying a cheaper imitation of Home
Shopping Club (if such is possible! :-) called "Home Shopping Spree".
Anyone know if that was a test or what?  They gave no call letters either...

Channel 46 in East St. Louis, IL, carries the real HSC and has
a reasonable signal, plus they carry a good amount of public-service
discussions and info each hour, and shrink the HSC signal into a corner of
the screen to show their local ID and run a weather crawl fairly
frequently.  Channel 58 carries a service called Jukebox which is a
dial-a-900-number to request a music video, and shows an ID slide pretty
regularly ("K58DH" or something like that); lots of raunchy rap videos and
stuff like the Madonna one thst I'm surprised to see over-the-air,
considering what restrictions I hear are on MTV and suchlike cable
music-video services.... (I mention these just to complete the roster of
local LPTV stations that I know of.)

Regards, Will
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 15:13:54 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!slced1![e-mail]
Subject: Iambic?
To: [e-mail]

In article <".5-Apr-91.11:20:07.GMT".*[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If an iambic keyer always sends an element at end of a character, of the
>opposite sense to the one you've just sent, e.g. *you* send dah-di-dah and *it*
>tags on another dit to make a 'C', then how do you send characters that end in
>two elements the same, like an 'L', or 'G'???
>
>Hugh, G0CNR.

   Some misconception that is!   All Iambic means is that the circuit is timed
to prevent the classic "swing" of the old reed type keyer.  The vibrating reed
type keys allowed the operator to send dahs as long as they wanted by simply
holding down the key.  The other side of the key used a reed to make a string
of dits that had two characteristics; 1 the spacing between the dits increased
slightly as time went by. 2. the length of each dit decreased slightly as the
string of dits goes on.  Admittedly, the difference in timing of the dits is
exceedingly small and some Hams will insist that it is undetectable, but it
is probably these same guys that reminice about so and so's distinctive
"fist."
An Iambic keyer keeps the timing straight so that a dit-length -say that
carefully in mixed company 8-) - is the basic unit.  Given that, the length
of time between parts of a letter is a dit, and a Dah is 3 dits long.  Classic
spacing between characters is 2 dits and between words, 5.  With a simple
side swiper paddle on a keyer of this type (push it left it's a string of dits-
push it right its a string of dahs) still allows the operator a somewhat,
stilted delivery.
An Iambic keyer with a squeeze paddle -push the right paddle left gets dits
push the left paddle right gets dahs  squeeze them together gets alternating
dit dah (or dah dit depending which one you hit first) is the ultimate (INMHO)
cw pleasure machine.  The self completeing dits and dahs and the alternating
characteristic means I can work cw longer with less fatigue.  AND Best of all,
I don't have some cyber-ham (machine generated and read cw operator) telling
me my fist is unreadable.

                         ..  ._ __   ._ ._ _..... _. _.._   _... _._

--
      *      suned1![e-mail] sun!suntzu!suned1!lev
          .                [e-mail]        +      .
    +          *       S.T.A.R.S.! The revolution has begun!   *
----------------- My employer has no opinions.  These are mine! ----------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 18:32:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Iambic?
To: [e-mail]

> If an iambic keyer always sends an element at end of a character, of the
> opposite sense to the one you've just sent, e.g. *you* send dah-di-dah and *it
   *
> tags on another dit to make a 'C', then how do you send characters that end in
> two elements the same, like an 'L', or 'G'???

For L:  depress the dit paddle
        tap the dah paddle while the first dit is forming
        release the dit paddle after the last character

For G:  don't use the iambic (squeeze) feature.  It is only used where you have
alternating characters, i.e., C,F,K,L,Q,R,Y,AR,SK,/,AS,BK,CL,period, etc.  For
all others, use it like a manual key:  let go of one paddle before pressing the
other.

steve - W3GRG

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 18:14:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Iambic Keying
To: [e-mail]

> How many people actually form the characters this way?  I use an iambic keyer
> at our club station, but I do it the 'hard' way, as if it were a non-iambic
> keyer.   Does this make me a lid?  Is it worth working hard on learning to

Hey, Derek, nobody said you were a lid.  Nor does anyone have to send code in
any particular manner.  But that's the way iambic keying works.  I found it
easy to learn and easy to like.  C'mon, be loose.

steve - W3GRG (and an astronomer, too)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 17:48:09 GMT
From: agate!darkstar!ucscb.UCSC.EDU![e-mail]
Subject: Icom IC-W2A Frequency Mod
To: [e-mail]

What types of mods (diode clips/additions) are available to extend the xmit
range of this receiver, and what is the  usable out-of-band xmit range?

No flames, please, just facts.  Thanks!

-Kirk J. Smith, EMT-1A, EMT-P Intern, Amateur License to Follow ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 17:54:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V91 #271
To: [e-mail]

From: Larry Jack KL7GLK / V77LJ

        RG8U and other colourful callsigns

Once upon a time a call like RG8U would have stuck out like the famous
sore thumb.  Now I'm not so sure that it would raise much more than a few
eyebrows.
In the Good Old Days (Oh no, not another OF off in Oldtimers heaven)
you could pretty well tell where someone was by his callsign.  I would
place the point of transition around the early '70's with the advent of
the U.S.'s "Funny Calls."  Don't get me wrong, I've have nothing against
them, and for those that don't know what I am referring to they are the
new 2X1, 2X2 calls that were openned up when the FCC began to deregulate
life.  With me they are fine, they are even fun.  Try giving the call
  KU2Q quickly in a pileup,..see?  Or how about a QSL with W1MP?  But
what ham hasn't played head games with callsign alphabet soup?  Certainly
we all want that certain individuality that sets us apart from the crowd.
And as Hams nothing more than our callsigns will ever come close.  What
I'm trying to lead up to a point, which is, as we all strive to become more
unique that the next chap, we all seem to loose anything that is special.
Again, don't get me wrong, the new callsigns are fun, easy(?), colourful &
here to stay.  But think a moment, you Old Farts, to the time when a pre-
fix like KB6 could only have been something, something ***VERY RARE!!***
I found myself thinking this during lastweek's WPX contest,after working a
6I8 station,only to look up the international allocation (who keeps those
rare things like 6I's in their heads?) to find it was Mexico.  Sure sounded
alot rarer than Mexico!  Remember when they all were XE's?  Of course this
does have the effect of making practically anyone at least sound like rare
no matter where they are.  I guess that being "rare" will just have to
be measured by things other than callsigns.  Having been on both side of the
issue (the hunter as well as the hunted--)      .......I will pause briefly
in silent reflection at this passing....and move on.
Which brings me to what I had set out originally to do,to tell all you new
hams a little about the exciting origins and previous  owners of what
you may today consider everyday callsigns.
                                          There was a time when  KC4
                                          would cause world class pileups....
Back in the pre 1970's and to some extent even today a US callsign from
the following areas were rare birds.  Many as you can see, have been
lumped under generic categories like KH# and other deleted completely
as their status (relative to the US) changed, ie: KA#.  Think your call
is just one in a thousand? Take pride amigo, at look at its rich history!

KA6- These were private stations of Americans in Occupied Japan post WW2.
     Unlike state-side callsigns, these were assigned by the military
     commands and not the FCC.  Seems I remember KA1's thru 0's with
     the KA8's being assigned to military club station, all the others
     were home stations.  The Japanese authorities forbid JA's from talking
     to any KA's.  To talk to a Japanese station you had to have a JA license.
     That's another story.
KB6  A rare one-  The Bonnin (Spelling?) and Volcano Islands of the far pacific

KC's  Both 4's and 6's existed,and like KB6's were outside the authority of the
      FCC.  Antarctica and the Canton Islands respectfully.  KC4USA etc. were
      the research stations that would be heard through the frequent solar
      flares.  KC4 is still used there.
KG's   Both 4's and 6's were used.  The 4's are still heard from that sore
       Castro would like to forget, in Cuba.  6's were (still) Guam
KH6    Hawaii -  The KH's (1, 2 etc.) replaced many of the following:
KJ6    Johnson Island.  A real treat to work.  Not much to visit (those
       of us who have wish they could have at least kept this as something
       unique...goodness knows they've little else out there)  Again, assigned
       by the military
KL7    Alaska, still is though no more are assigned- NL7, WL7's today
       but it could change
KM6    Midway Island, Pacific
KN6    Old Novice class licenses from California
KP6    Palmyra and Jarvis Islands, Pacific.  Rare then, Rare today.  KH5
       replaced KP6
KR6    Okinawa, same as the KA's above.
KS     Both 4's and 6's.  The 6's were Saipan, the 4's Swan Island.
       Swan was a CIA base on the coast of Central America. Working a
       real KS4 was to work a spy.
KT's   Fortunately their never were any, but once there was a move afoot
       to have this as the prefix for Technican class licenses.  Similar
       to the KN's and WN's
KV4    Still the Virgin Islands
KW6    Wake Island, Pacific
KX6    The Marshall Islands, now V7's. KX6BU Kwajalein was famous worldwide.
KZ5    The Canal Zone in Panama.

Part 5 Experimental Radio Service Licenses used amateur radio callsigns
except they would include an X in the suffix.    For example  KI2XNA-
the X as the first letter always meant an experimental station.  Since they
were licensed for all kinds of things outside the ham bands, many hams
tuning across these weird calls were easily upset.  All legal though.  The
prefix could be anything, and the district (#) didn't reflect the Ham
call districts.
Still think a KC6 is nothing.....?

                                  Larry Jack KL7GLK (ex KX6LJ, KR6LJ
                                                        KI2XNA  etc.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 17:41:17 GMT
From: deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Large 110->220 Transformers.
To: [e-mail]

|>...
|>Also remember that much of Europe uses 240/250 volts, NOT 220V!  This may
|>result in the smoothing caps of a '220 volt' device being put under
|>outside-design-limits voltages and shorten equipment life.
|>Check with a meter first if you want to play safe.
|>
|>
|>           Pete Lucas [e-mail]  [e-mail]

Not quite.  The UK is 240 volts; all the rest of Europe is 220.
(Actually, I'm not positive about Ireland; would someone confirm?)

Apart from that, any device that blows up when set for 220 but fed with
240 is trash anyway.

    paul

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 13:40:56 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix.enet.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Licensing Philosophy
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Chiles) writes:

|>
|>   In the case of the ham bands, you're tested on theory because the
|>   license conveys the right to make, modify and experiment with
|>   transmitters.
|>
|>This is interesting; however, there is no law against any CBer building a
|>transmitter and operating it on a valid CB frequency.  [...]

Bravely stated, but 100% wrong.  CB'ers may not build a transmitter for
CB frequencies and use it.  The may not modify existing transmitters for
use on CB frequencies. (I don't want to get into one of the pointless
arguements about what's legal .vs. what's done.)

--
                                             >>>==>PStJTT
                                     Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD

If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to
waste my time on this crap....

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 15:42:14 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]
Subject: Licensing Philosophy?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Bill Chiles) writes:
>A friend was asking me the other day why one must learn some basic
>electronics to obtain a amateur radio license.
>Then he made two more points: with the state of modern gear, one or two can
>fix their own rigs without a factory, and the rigs do everything.  The
>other point was that the government doesn't restrict the public's access to
>operating motor vehicles to those who demonstrate basic mechanic's skills.
>...  Why then must a radio operator know about the internals of his gear
>to obtain access to the airwaves?

You don't have to know anything about radio to obtain access to the airwaves.
If you want a no-knowledge radio license, go and buy a GMRS license, or get
a CB radio.  It's that simple.  If you want to operate in the part of the
spectrum that the FCC has set aside for people who have demonstrated some
minimal knowledge of electronics and rules and regulations, then you'll have
to demonstrate some minimal knowledge of electronics and rules and regulations.
What in heaven's name is wrong with this?  If you want to operate in the
spectrum reserved for aircraft, you have to be piloting a plane.

Digging slightly deeper, if you're going to be loosed in a playpen with
(routine) worldwide propagation, you should at least learn about radio
propagation, which is already a technical subject -- which is also the
reasoning behind ensuring that no-test licenses (CB and GMRS) are kept from
having worldwide propagation (of course, they blew it with the 27 MHz band).

Considering the state of technical education in the US, I think the number of
things that require dumbing down is extremely small.  If you want a telephone,
you know where to get it -- don't demand that amateur radio provide telephone
service also.

> Just thinking too much I suppose ....

Just not very hard.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 15:38:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Real info on scanner situation wanted
To: [e-mail]

Over here on the Internet mailing list side of Info-hams, I've seen a
couple postings with the headers of "Scanner ban - here are the facts".
But, unfortunately, these postings were NOT discussions of the subject,
but instead followups about the language used in the original, which
hasn't showed up here (yet).

Is this in regard to the item in the April Monitoring times? That was
a last-page editorial that stated the FCC had accepted a proposal to
restrict the legal coverage of scanners to eliminate police and public-
safety frequencies.

I have no idea if this is true -- this was the APRIL edition of MT,
after all, and electronics mags have a long history of spoof or
spurious April-fool articles and items.

Other factors are that the FCC never legally restricted scanners or
recievers from cellular coverage, even though the ECPA banned legal
listening to those signals, while I believe the wording of the ECPA
specifically stated that police/public-safety signals *were* legal
listening fare (subject to the pre-existing non-disclosure restrictions
of the 1930's radio act). So adopting this position would be
inconsistent. (But no one ever claimed the FCC could do anything right,
of course...)

In addition, the way this was described was that it was an out-of-the-blue
proposal at an FCC commissioners' meeting. It would have to go through
all the public-notice, request for comment, and associated long-term
approval procedures before being enacted. The MT description didn't
cite all this (and they DID have enough room on the page to add more
text, so they could have).

So, could we have some REAL discussion of this, please? Is it a spoof
or is it factual?

Regards, Will
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 15:15:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: STS-37 SAREX Operating Schedule
To: [e-mail]

STS-37 with its 5 member amateur radio operator crew successfully lifted off
on April 5 at 14:23 UTC. This is an operating schedule for the SAREX activity
updated for launch date and time. Reading left to right, Mission Elapsed Time
in Days, Hours, and Minutes, UTC date and time in Day of the Month, hours, and
minutes, and then Event. Note that the entry in the UTC D column is Day of the
Month; so, for example, the first entry under UTC, 5 14 23, should be read as
April 5 at 14:23 UTC. Also, be aware that Daylight Savings Time will begin
during this mission. Don't let that confuse you. All times shown here are UTC
which does not shift back and forth with the passing of the seasons. Time line
information for this table comes from "STS-37 SAREX Information Summary"
posted by Gary Morris (N5QWC) on 21 March, 1991. This information is the same
time line summary posted from AMSAT.
Good luck and happy shuttle DX to all.

Joseph M. Fedock  N3IE
Unisys DS,Inc/EISG/VFL
Paoli, PA 19301
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

    MET           UTC
  D  Hr  Mn     D  Hr  Mn   Event
  -  --  --     -  --  --   ------------------------------------
  0   0   0     5  14  23   Launch
  0   6  55     5  21  18   Start_SAREX_Setup
  0   7   0     5  21  23   Begin_Pre-Sleep_Activity
  0   7  20     5  21  43   Finish_SAREX_Setup
  0  10   0     6   0  23   Begin_Sleep_Period
  0  18   0     6   8  23   Begin_Post-Sleep_Activity
  0  21   0     6  11  23   End_Post-Sleep_Activity
  0  21  50     6  12  13   Cabin_depress_to_10.2_PSI
  0  23  12     6  13  35   AOS_FSTV_w/N9AB,_US_Bridge
  0  23  30     6  13  53   LOS_FSTV_w/N9AB,_US_Bridge
  1   0  51     6  15  14   AOS_School_#1_via_US_Bridge
  1   1   9     6  15  32   LOS_School_#1_via_US_Bridge
  1   2  29     6  16  52   AOS_School_#2_via_US_Bridge
  1   2  47     6  17  10   LOS_School_#2_via_US_Bridge
  1   4   9     6  18  32   AOS_School_#3_via_US_Bridge
  1   4  25     6  18  48   LOS_School_#3_via_US_Bridge
  1   6   0     6  20  23   Begin_Pre-Sleep_Activity
  1   6   0     6  20  23   AOS_School_#4_via_SA_Bridge
  1   6  21     6  20  44   LOS_School_#4_via_SA_Bridge
  1   9   0     6  23  23   Begin_Sleep_Period
  1  17   0     7   7  23   Begin_Post-Sleep_Activity
  1  20   0     7  10  23   End_Post-Sleep_Activity
  1  21   0     7  11  23   GRO_Grapple
  1  21  10     7  11  33   GRO_Unberth
  1  22  10     7  12  33   GRO_Solar_Array_Deploy
  1  23  30     7  13  53   GRO_High_Gain_Antenna_Deploy
  2   0  11     7  14  34   AOS_FSTV_w/W5RRR,_KE4PT_w/US_Bridge
  2   0  31     7  14  54   LOS_FSTV_w/W5RRR,_KE4PT_w/US_Bridge
  2   3  10     7  17  33   GRO_Release
  2   6   0     7  20  23   Begin_Pre-Sleep_Activity
  2   9   0     7  23  23   Begin_Sleep_Period
  2  17   0     8   7  23   Begin_Post-Sleep_Activity
  2  20   0     8  10  23   End_Post-Sleep_Activity
  2  20   0     8  10  23   Begin_EVA_Prep
  2  21  50     8  12  13   Unscheduled_SSTV/Packet
  2  22  15     8  12  38   Airlock_Depress/Egress
  2  23  20     8  13  43   Unscheduled_SSTV/Packet
  3   0  50     8  15  13   Unscheduled_SSTV/Packet
  3   2  20     8  16  43   Unscheduled_SSTV/Packet
  3   4  30     8  18  53   Airlock_Ingress/Repress
  3   5  15     8  19  38   Begin_Pre-Sleep_Activity
  3   8  15     8  22  38   Begin_Sleep_Period
  3  15  15     9   5  38   Begin_Post-Sleep_Activity
  3  18  15     9   8  38   End_Post-Sleep_Activity
  3  18  15     9   8  38   Cabin_repress_to_14.7_PSI
  3  22  54     9  13  17   AOS_School_#5_US_Bridge
  3  23  13     9  13  36   LOS_School_#5_US_Bridge
  4   0  32     9  14  55   AOS_Backup_FSTV_or_w/W5RRR_US_Bridge
  4   0  52     9  15  15   LOS_Backup_FSTV_or_w/W5RRR_US_Bridge
  4   5   5     9  19  28   Begin_Pre-Sleep_Activity
  4   5  10     9  19  33   Start_SAREX_Stow
  4   5  40     9  20   3   Finish_SAREX_Stow
  4   8   5     9  22  28   Begin_Sleep_Period
  4  16   5    10   6  28   Begin_Post-Sleep_Activity
  4  19   5    10   9  28   End_Post-Sleep_Activity
  4  23   5    10  13  28   Deorbit_Burn
  5   0  10    10  14  33   EDW_Landing

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 17:56:56 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!platypus![e-mail]
Subject: Ultrasonics.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry G Ramsey) writes:
>
> Seriously, how does the dog know what the sound means when he hears it,
> unless he's been trained to respond to it in some way.
>

One way would be to find a pitch/frequency that caused intense pain or
that scrambled brain-waves (is that possible remotely?)

Of course, the big question is did the dog pass the no-code tech exam and
was he ordering pizza on the repeater??

--
     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     [e-mail]   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     [e-mail]    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 17:44:53 GMT
From: deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Working with Phillystran
To: [e-mail]

|>
|>We received a roll of the super-heavy Phillystran (about the same diameter
|>as RG8).  I was told it was the "new type" -- you no longer had to
|>buy the special termination kits.  Supposedly it just requires using
|>a thimble and a few (3?) clamps to properly terminate it.  Is this correct?
|>
|>                                --- Jeff
|>--
|>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|> Jeff DePolo  N3HBZ/AE          Twisted Pair: [phone]
|> [e-mail]    RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia)
|> University of Pennsylvania     Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
|>

The way I understand it, the new style no longer requires termination
by potting (casting exoxy-like stuff).  But it DOES require termination
devices specifically made for it.  You should ask the manufacturer.
It doesn't make sense to pay a small fortune for tower, guys, and antennas,
only to have the whole thing fall down because steel wire clamps don't
hold on Phyllistran.

    paul

PS. Eniac?  Cute...

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 13:49:02 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix.enet.dec.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>tabe
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Subject : Re: No-Code Testing Questions

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed
Greenberg) writes:
|>
|>A technician (issued after 14 Feb) who passes a code test will not
|>receive a new license.  S/he will not have a form 610 sent to the
|>government.  The burden of proof will be on the technician to prove
|>that
|>any HF license was legal.  The situation is the same as for somebody
|>who has upgraded, and is waiting for a new license.  The operation
|>based
|>on the CSCE is legal, but if questioned, the licensee must produce
|>the
|>CSCE.
|>
|>One big difference is that the Technician who wishes to operate HF
|>must
|>retain the documentation FOREVER, and it's not replacable.

Not exactly true.  Evidence of passing a code test will be forwarded to
the FCC where it will be retained in the their records.  So there is no
"burden of proof" on the upgraded Tech.  The only people who can
question the validity of the ticket are FCC employees, and they'll
already know if the tech in question has passed a test or not (assuming
time has passed for the paperwork to be processed. Surely it's
reasonable to expect that they'd hang on to the CSCE that long.)  So
there is never a need to "prove" qualification unless the licensee
chooses to.

Since the FCC has to store the data somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised
if the code test info eventually found its way into the callsign tapes
and thus into the callbook.

--
                                             >>>==>PStJTT
                                     Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD

If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to
waste my time on this crap....

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 19:04:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: No-Code Testing Questions

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed
>Greenberg) writes:
>One big difference is that the Technician who wishes to operate HF
>must
>retain the documentation FOREVER, and it's not replacable.

What I think most discussants in this continuing story are missing is
that point that the FCC has essentially said that whether you've passed
the code test or not isn't really very important to them.  My guess is
that they really don't care at all - only pharisaical fellow hams are
going to get all hot and bothered.

Those are probably the same type of people that keep worrying about what
kind of sex the neighbors are having.  Hmmph.  Seems to me that if you
can't make some sort of helpful contribution, the very least you could
do was to not get in the way.
    - Brian

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 91 16:22:22 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven!wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: ATV: AM or FM

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>
>
>There is quite a bit of phase wobble in satellite signals. It's fun
>to watch your uplink coming back from the bird and see the vectorscope
>spin first one way then the other.

At the time when the first "Aussat" satellite was launched in Australia
we were measuring the dopler shift of the 4.433MHz colour subcarrier
on a vectorscope (watching our signal comming back with the vectorscope
locked to "station sync"). It turned out our measurement had better
precision than the method used by the space systems people at Aussat!


--
Michael Katzmann  (VK2BEA/G4NYV/NV3Z)   Please email to this address |
Broadcast Sports Technology                                          |
2135 Espey Ct. #4                                                   \|/
Crofton MD 21114-2442    [phone]      ...uunet!opel!vk2bea!michael

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest
******************************