HAM Radio 3/hamradioversion3.0examsandprograms1992.iso/news/inham08/983.

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 16KB | 402 lines

Today's Topics:
                            ARRL (2 msgs)
                         ARRL and tx/rx mods
                         H89 Terminal Program
                         info on IC R71 Book?
                        Meteor Scatter Beacon
             Modifiying radios for out of band operation
  Modifiying radios for out of band operation (was Re: ARRL) (long)
                            RCA Series 700
              Re^2: What's a good "FCC class B" PC/AT c
                        Scanning food service
                                Static
                     Them Pesky Monitoring Laws!
                     Where is Burkina Faso (XT2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 89 18:10:19 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil Karn) writes:
  ....several examples of mods given...deleted to save space.
>
> On my IC-32A (2m/70cm handheld) I enabled all of the out-of-band receive and
> transmit mods. Why? Because that was the only way to gain the ability to
> transmit within the 70cm amateur band below 440 MHz.
>
> So you see, Bob, there are some perfectly legitimate reasons an amateur
> might want to modify an amateur rig for extended frequency coverage that
> have absolutely nothing to do with a desire to operate illegally. Modifying
> an amateur transceiver to *enable* it to transmit out of band is perfectly
> legal as long as you don't *actually* transmit out of band.
>
> Phil

Good point phil, I tend to forget about operation outside the weak signal
parts of the band. There are indeed legitimate uses for tx equipment which
*could* transmit an out of band signal. I very much doubt that that is the
reason why most mods are made. As regards the previous posting about
reporting requests for such mods to the FCC, that is going a bit far. However
the op of a BBS has a perfect right to reject any posting he feels might be
inappropriate. If every modified HT was used to drive transverters to the
higher bands, then I for one would be very pleased.
                                                       Bob,  KA1GT

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 19:39:25 GMT
From: csusac!mmsac![e-mail]  (David Kensiski)
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> I know that I'm going to get flamed, now, for having posted excuses
> that the illegal operators can use in order to contrive
> legitimate-sounding requests for out-of-band modifications.
> FBOM.

(What does FBOM mean?)

No flames from me!  I support your postion entirely.  I was rather
upset by the "ARRL" posting that you refer to.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the information about
how to modify your radio for out of band operation.  Nor is there
anything wrong with performing these modifications to your radio.
What is wrong is using this modified radio to transmit out of your
licensed band.

If you are going to flame Kenny, you'd best flame me, too.

--Dave

--
David L. Kensiski, KB6HCN     Martin Marietta Data Systems
Software Engineer             1540 River Park Drive, Suite 213
Phone: [phone]         Sacramento, CA  95815
UUCP: sun!sacto!mmsac!david   INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 18:30:38 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: ARRL and tx/rx mods
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Another legit use of modified radios would be a signal source for testing
recievers, scanners, etc.  Just be sure to use a dummy load on the
transciever, or even an attenuator and cable connected to the reciever (use a
LOT of attenuation!).  But the dummy load will leak enough so that a nearby
reciever should hear it.  I'm sure that those RF signal generators I see
around the lab are not restricted to FCC licensed people only!  At least noone
worrys about it here.

73 de WA2ISE

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 22:10:46 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: H89 Terminal Program
Message-ID: <186405@Wayne-MTS>

TO whoever was looking for an H89 program: This is a CP/M machine,
right? I'd suggest looking through the bulletin boards for a copy of
PLINK. It's not the smartest thing, but it'll do a crude upload
and download, has few neat features, and best of all, it's small
enough to type into your machine (which may be necessary if you
don't *have* a terminal program already!) without wearing out your
fingers. At least, that's how I got started on my late, lamented
Northstar...
                  --mike ke8yy
 [e-mail]
 medelman@waynest1

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 23:20:35 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (George Robbins)
Subject: info on IC R71 Book?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Is anyone familiar with a book(let) titled "ICOM R71 Performance Handbook"
written by some guy up in Canada?  I'd like to know if the book is really
useful or if I should just go buy all those optional filters...

I'm primarily interested in computerized control, but would also be interested
in mods or do it yerself add-ins.

Also, either a phone number, price or pointer to and advertisment would be
appreciated...

--
George Robbins - now working for,    uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing    arpa: cbmvax![e-mail]
Commodore, Engineering Department    fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 21:52:15 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com![e-mail]  (Jim Reisert)
Subject: Meteor Scatter Beacon
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charlie Thompson) writes...
>Since there is a commercial meteor scatter system in place (monitoring
>snowfall?) it would be nice to tune in to the master station's beacon
>frequency and "listen" for meteors.  What frequencies in the US are
>currently in use as the master station for meteor communication?

Charlie,

We do the same thing with TV channels, especially 12 and 13.  We have a
monitor which is tuned to the video carrier frequency of one of the
non-local channels (i.e.  you don't want to pick a channel that's close by,
because you'll hear it all the time.) During meteor showers, you can hear
the pings from the carriers of distant television stations.  One of these
channels we use is in the 215 MHz range, probably 13, since there is a
channel 12 locally (Providence, RI).

jim, AD1C

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet: [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:     ...decwrl!tallis.enet!reisert
295 Foster Street
P.O. Box 1123
Littleton, MA  01460

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 01:42:40 GMT
From: tank!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: Modifiying radios for out of band operation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Bono) writes:
>I can see the headlines now, "Ham radio equipment is used to disrupt
>police/fire/ambulance (choose one) communications and 5 lives were lost".
>What will they do??? Of course they will create a new law that says that
>broadband technologies and computer controlled PLL's cannot be used in
>Amateur gear any longer because it is too easlily modified for use in
>services where it does not belong.

Rich:
    This would be another example of inept and ignorant legislators
gone awry.  Unfortunately, all we seem to have is inept and ignorant
legislators.  All this would do is create another black market.  Don't
we have enough black markets (drugs, prostitutes, certain weapons)?
Didn't we learn in the 20's that creating black markets is
self-defeating?

    On the other hand, (and this is the real point of this posting),
this might be good for amateur radio.  What if all hams had to build
their own rigs?  What if the fancy stuff wasn't available commercially?
This might get a lot of the riff-raff off the bands.  Sure, we would all
be inconvenienced, but there might be some hidden advantages.

    I think that all amateur radio operators should be able to build
their own equipment.  I can (and have) build my own transmitters,
receivers, and antennas.  If I can do it at 10 GHz, I surely can do it on
450 MHz and below!

>I sometimes wonder where this urge to modify radios to transmit in an area
>that we are not allowed comes from.

Most of it comes from wanting to use the receiver over a wider frequency
range.  Opening up the receiver on many UHF radios opens up the
transmitter also.  Why don't the rice-boxes come with extended receive
capability on UHF?

In the rare case that original ideas   Kenneth J. Hendrickson    N8DGN
are found here, I am responsible.      Owen W328, E. Lansing, MI 48825
Internet: [e-mail]           UUCP: ...!uunet!pollux!kjh

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 02:53:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Modifiying radios for out of band operation (was Re: ARRL) (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I have modified my radios to work out-of-band because they make
super-fantastic pieces of test equipment, both as receivers and as
signal sources.  I don't jam with them.  What I **DO** do with them is
work hard at trying to advance the state of the art of radio communication.

I really don't understand the little-old-grannies on this network who
worry about what someone else might do with a modified radio.  One gets
the impression that these frightened little rabbits are so fearful that
they hardly dare get on the air themselves!  To justify their fears,
they conjure up nightmare visions of "converted free-banders", "deaths
from interference", and things that go bump in the night.  Is it that
they fear that others will show the same dearth of self-control that they
lack?

If you are one of these people, I say to you, sell or give away your
radios and take up stamp collecting.  You clearly don't need ham radio,
and ham radio doesn't need you.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
        - Brian

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 02:40:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Brian Kantor)
Subject: RCA Series 700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

RCA radio TCXOs show up at swap meets from time to time; around here
there's a guy who appears every two or three months with little bins of
dozens of channel elements, icoms, and tcxos.  About $5 to $10 is the
going rate.

Or check with a local two-way radio shop to see if they have any
pull-outs.  Used to be that the factory shipped a set in every radio and
some of the larger outfits didn't want to bother to re-crystal them, so
they just piled up in bin under the bench.

I think International Crystal will sell you new ones, but they're dear.
    - Brian

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 00:32:56 GMT
From: jupiter![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re^2: What's a good "FCC class B" PC/AT c
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>Regarding Jameco...

My problem with Jameco is that their prices are way out of line compared
to what I see at the local computer shows. I've bought several systems
at these events over the past few years and, in general, I've had
reasonably good luck. The one time I had an infant mortality (a Samsung
VGA monitor) the dealer replaced it without any question (although I did
have to drive it back.)

At the computer shows you also get the opportunity to examine things
like cases before you buy to see if they can be made RF tight.

But you really have to do your homework before you buy parts for your
clone system. I bought that Samsung monitor with the expectation that I
could add extra memory to the VGA card I bought with it to display
enhanced 640x480x256 images. The VGA card worked fine in the enhanced
mode, but I discovered to my dismay that the (newly replaced) Samsung
monitor couldn't support the slower scanning rate.

So at the next show I ended up trading it back in for a NEC Multisync
3D. It works great on Eric's weather satellite pictures (and everything
else in the GIF collections, too.) But if I had done my homework ahead
of time, however, I could have bought the Multisync at the beginning and
saved myself some trouble.

Phil

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 01:48:04 GMT
From: usenet.ins.cwru.edu![e-mail]  (Gary Lee)
Subject: Scanning food service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Having just joined this net, I missed this list.

Would some kind individual please e-mail me a copy of it?



Thanks,

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 15:03:08 CST
From: [e-mail] (DUBE TODD)
Subject: Static
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Steve Bertsch asked "Why are random noise pulses called static?"
How about:  It's the sound it made in those old headsets :) :)

73s

Dube Todd

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 21:36:07 GMT
From: well![e-mail]  (Robert Horvitz)
Subject: Them Pesky Monitoring Laws!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Mike Nowicki recently wrote:

>  With all the flames on this net about snoops vs. uncurious types I for
> one would like to know EXACTLY what the law says about monitoring various
> communications.
>  I'm familar with the now obselete law of 1934 that says in essence that
> you can receive anything that's out there, just don't pass along anything
> you may hear.
>  Now the law has changed and if I put any stock in the rumors, opinions
> and flames, I would conclude you can only listen to international
> broadcasters, public broadcasters and hams.
>  Does anyone happen to have a copy of the new FCC law so when can all
> see it?

Mike, there are two basic published resources on radio monitoring laws.
Get both and you should be able to find the answer to almost any question
about what's legal and what's not:

"Compilation of the Communications Act of 1934 and Related Provisions of
Law,"  Committee Print 101-I, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
(May 1989).  $12 from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.  This contains the current version of the
Comm Act of '34, which is NOT obsolete, just limited in scope by the ECPA.
This volume also contains the ECPA, as well as laws dealing with satellite
TV monitoring, copyright in broadcasting, the ban on cigarette ads, etc.

"ANARC Guide to US Monitoring Laws"  Compiled by Frank Terranella (1989).
This volume is more narrowly focused on laws that restrict radio
monitoring.  Now in its third printing, it includes most radio parts of
the ECPA, the full texts of state scanner laws, plain-English
interpretations and brief references to the relevant case law.  Cost:
$7.50 from ANARC Publications, 1218 Huntington Road, San Marcos, CA
92069 USA.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Robert Horvitz, Executive Secretary              ANARC BBS:  1-913-345-1978
Association of North American Radio Clubs            Compuserve:  76210,517
P.O. Box 143, Falls Church, VA 22046-0143 USA        uucp: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 22:53:55 GMT
From: sparkyfs!milkfs.itstd.sri.com![e-mail]  (Greg DesBrisay)
Subject: Where is Burkina Faso (XT2)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Where is Burkina Faso.  Loyd and Iris Colvin are supposed to be active
from there as XT2KG.  Is it the new name of a country or is it an
island or reef somewhere?

Thanks in advance,

Greg
AA6BO

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #983
**************************************