HAM Radio 3/hamradioversion3.0examsandprograms1992.iso/news/inham89/1032.

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 13KB | 268 lines

INFO-HAMS Digest            Sun, 17 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue 1032

Today's Topics:
                              6m opening
                          Broadband Antennas
                         Can we all grow up?
                             Ham Tickets
   Interpretation of the rules (Or... the Lone Ranger rides again)
                     rec.radio.shortwave "invite"
                               spelling
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 89 18:28:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kok Chen)
Subject: 6m opening
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

There was an amazing (imho :-) 6m opening between the SF Bay Area and
Japan Saturday (Dec. 16) at about 2300Z.

I first stumbled on it when I heard a JA call CQ at about 2310Z.  As I
scanned the band between 50.1 and 50.15, there were JAs everywhere!  So
I picked a pileup and listened in on a local furiously working them.
I only have a 1 meter piece of wire (proverbial wet string) connected to an
Icom R-7000, and I was getting many of the JAs at S5 on the (very scotch)
meter.  (With very little sky noise, even an S2 signal is 100% readable
with the set-up.)

About 15 minutes later, the band fell dead again.  10m was not especially
spectacular in the same time period.  Is this one of the tropo openings??

Some of the grids heard were QM05,QM08 and PM94 (drool, drool :-).

Some of the prefixes that came through, like JG1 and JE1, I have not heard
on HF before.  Are these the "no-code" Japanese licenses?  I must say that
a 6m pileup is infinitely more civilized than, say, a typical 20m pileup. And,
if some of those gentlefolks were no-code types, what does this say about
the argument that the absence of code proficiency invites the riff-raff?

My first taste of 6m DX and all I could do was to sit by silently, cursing
the Friendly Candy Company for not having processed my 610 yet.  QLF!

Any other areas experienced the opening?


Kok Chen            [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: 17 Dec 89 08:28:37 GMT
From: shelby!neon!Neon.Stanford.EDU![e-mail]  (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Broadband Antennas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I have a nice site (2100', 7 acres), but zoning height restrictions (35'
unless I want to pay big bux for a variance).  Also, I am lazy.  So I am
thinking about broadband antennas.  Specifically, I have seen ads for the
Barker and Williamson AC 3.5-30, and the Garant GD-9.  Both are long wire
dipoles (windom in the case of Garant) with 'magic' matching networks.

Does anyone have any experience with one or both of these things?  Alternate
antler theories will also be considered.

Marc Kaufman, WB6ECE ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 13:27:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Can we all grow up?
Message-ID: <188733@Wayne-MTS>

Info-Hams used to be a fantastic source of information for everyone from
old timers to beginners. Now it's 90% flames that belong in private
exchanges, insults and blow-offs to newcomers and endless rehashes of
long-settled trivial $#%$^%&%^. Before I decide it's not worth it anymore,
can we agree to keep it a friendly, informative forum? If not, perhaps
those of us not prone to flames can ask Keith to set up a seperate Info-Flamers
list and just automatically direct the offenders there.

                  --mike ke8yy
 [e-mail]
 medelman@waynest1
...and here's a vote for shorter, less political trailers... :)

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

Date: 17 Dec 89 09:03:01 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!marque!lakesys![e-mail]  (Timothy Winslow)
Subject: Ham Tickets
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I don't know if anyone has ever observed this, or if anyone is really interested
in knowing a little trival thing like this, but every Ham Ticket I have seen
printed in the past few years have all been printed on a Tuesday!  Look at
the date of your Ticket, see if it was issued on a Tuesday.




Timothy Winslow/N9ICD
[e-mail]
or:
uunet!marque!lakesys!tim
or:
csd4.csd.uwm.edu!lakesys.lakesys.com!tim

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 14:07:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Interpretation of the rules (Or... the Lone Ranger rides again)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!stjhmc!f1.n234.z1.fidonet.org
![e-mail] (Jim Grubs) writes:

<previous posting deleted>
<Jim explains his motivations for posting what he does about amateur regs>

>For one very simple reason -- when a few flout the regs, ALL of us suffer
>the consequences. The FCC commonly responds to regulatory abuses in ham
>radio by banning it for everyone. In the past, there was the "Eyebank Net"
>flap, the fallout of which seriously impairs public service projects to
>this very day.  The present "20 meter letter" inquiry is a case in point.
>You watch, because of a few scofflaws, we'll lose 3rd party traffic. Because
>of RAIN and ARF, we may lose bulletin transmission.

Let us for a moment assume that you are the source of "TRUTH AND WISDOM"
instead of "ARF",  (seems like a territorial dispute to me) what have your
numerous postings of the "you are not allowed to do this,  you are not
allowed to do that" type done to prevent your prediction from coming true?
If you think that there is some silent majority out there cheering you on,
then you are sadly mistaken. The only person giving you support is Dube Todd
who was another person that went off trying to say that someone was breaking
the law by asking for military daily use callsigns.  He happened to be wrong
but "his heart was in the right place" right?  Your postings do more to
harden the resolve of these people than prevent anything. When you make a
person mad, they don't usually go out of their way to re-examine their
beliefs, they get hard headed. So even in the off chance that you are
correct on ANY issue, your postings are NEVER going to accomplish your
stated objective.

>Let's use an analogy -- how long would hobby aviation last if the Sunday
>fliers insisted that their private pilot's license gives them the authority
>to carry passengers who don't "pay" fares but who give presents or free will
>donations?  What's the harm? My interpretation of the rules is good enough
>for me, and if I  get caught, I'll take my lumps.

Interesting analogy Jim.  A Private Pilot ticket allows you to "share" the
expense of a trip with your passengers.  You can not be "chartered" to go
someplace (i.e. hired) but you are allowed to accept monetary donations
towards the expense of the trip.  So what is the exact amount that you are
allowed to accept?  If you tell me that I can only accept 50% of the actual
fuel cost, and I say that I will accept 70% of the fuel cost because I am
also considering the time on the engine towards overhaul, the averaged cost
of avionics repair, the cost of tie downs at the destination, etc., etc.,
then who is right and who is wrong?  Neither of us really, since the key to
the issue is that I was going to the destination anyway and I was not
specifically hired or chartered by the passenger to do so ahead of time.
But here is where we get to the root of your postings. YOU have read the
RULES and have gotten a meaning out of them that I didn't get. Who died
and decided that YOUR OPINION or INTERPRETATION is always right?  You ALWAYS
come across as being the torch behind all truth and wisdom. If anybody
disagrees with YOU then they are against amateur radio!

>I'm not trying to be a newsgroup nuisance. I'm trying to save my hobby from
>being ruined by a bunch of scofflaws who think doing things by the book
>isn't  "now", who think obeying the law is an infringement on their personal
>liberties.

Well I will not comment on being a "newsgroup nuisance".  However your
comments on saving YOUR hobby really get to the root of this issue. It
is not YOUR hobby Jim, it is OUR hobby. It is obvious that you think that
amateur radio is a personal possession by many of the things you say and
the postings that you make.  The problem is that you just can't convince
the rest of us that YOU own it!  The problem boils down to the fact that
you are deciding what people are "scofflaws", and who is "doing things
by the book" and who isn't.  You believe that if anyone ever disagrees
with your interpretation of a rule, then they are hell bent for leather
out to destroy "your" hobby.  Do you yell "HI YO SILVER AWAY" before you
write a letter for info-hams or packet-radio?

But like ARF, RAIN, DEATH, and TAXES, I will just have to get used to you,
since there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.  Are you mad yet?
You are?  Then think closely about how willing you are RIGHT NOW to consider
whether any of the above is true.  Get the point?  What you write tends to
make people MAD!  It rarely makes them THINK, it just makes them MAD, and
when that happens the usual goal of the reader is to cause the same effect
right back at you.  This starts a back and forth flame battle that sometimes
goes on for a month or more.. then it finally dies down and then BANGO you
write another posting and up goes the FLAME flag again!  Do you consider
this to be CONSTRUCTIVE?

What you apparently fail to understand Jim is that there is room for more
than your personal interpretations of the rules. What you fail to understand
is that you could be very wrong on some issues. What you fail to understand
is that "your cure" can sometimes be worse than the disease, especially if
you happen to be wrong.  What you fail to understand is that disagreeing
with you is not a DEFACTO rebellion against law and order!

I guess simply said Jim, YOU JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTAND..... PERIOD!

Mark Bitterlich
[e-mail]
WA3JPY@WB4UOU

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

Date: 17 Dec 89 12:42:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Ken Greer)
Subject: rec.radio.shortwave "invite"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>
>Consider this a re-invitation to rec.radio.shortwave.  Sure, there are flaming
>dweebs out there... so what's new?  I've seen some flaming dweebs working
>*this* newsgroup too.  And every other unmoderated newsgroup I've read as well.
>Ignore them; they're not the only ones out there.

>Brandon S. Allbery    [e-mail], BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi)


Thanks Brandon.  I'm not a ham; I stick to swl'ing.  I can understand an
irritation from some "locals" that a newgroup should stick to its founding
premise, ham'img, rather than being infested by swl-only-stuff.  From what
I've seen over the last few weeks, this has not been the case, IMHO.  Does
anyone object to someone like myself who asks a question about antennas? I
would hope not, this being such a common thing to ham & swl.  But I can
understand getting ticked off about postings of VOA/BBC/RM loggings, etc.
in rec.ham-radio.  Like in so many other groups, there those who will do
dumb, obnoxious things.  That's nothing new to usenet, as you and many others
well know.  As an swl, I would like to ask that swl's respect the rec.ham-radio
newsgroup "members", their charter and intentions.  Personally, though, I
would not be annoyed with ham postings in swl.  There's always going to be
some overlap - just look at 40(41) meters  :^)

Kim Greer
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Dec 89 07:47:38 GMT
From: tank!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: spelling
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeremy S. Anderson) writes:
>    There are two major products of Berkley, CA -- LSD and UNIX.  We don't
>belive this to be strictly by coincidence.
>Jeremy S. Anderson  [e-mail]   LostIn, TX

The correct spelling is Berkeley.
                ^

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!usc!pollux!kjh

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #1032
***************************************