home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Tech Arsenal 1
/
Tech Arsenal (Arsenal Computer).ISO
/
tek-20
/
ih90564.zip
/
IH90564.TXT
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
1990-12-29
|
10KB
|
217 lines
From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!info-hams-relay Thu Dec 27 14:42:48 1990 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.63/waf)
via UUCP; Fri, 28 Dec 90 23:02:09 EST
for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com
id aa27133; Thu, 27 Dec 90 14:42:47 GMT
Received: from ucsd.edu by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA23998; Thu, 27 Dec 90 09:23:45 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA27160
sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
Thu, 27 Dec 90 04:30:17 -0800 for claris!netcom!teda!fester.dnet!rideout
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA27154
sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
Thu, 27 Dec 90 04:30:15 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -finfo-hams-relay info-hams-list
Message-Id: <9012271230.AA27154@ucsd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 04:30:14 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams-relay@ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: Info-Hams@ucsd.edu
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V90 #564
To: Info-Hams@ucsd.edu
Info-Hams Digest Thu, 27 Dec 90 Volume 90 : Issue 564
Today's Topics:
5 WPM == ITU requirement
Looking for National 8629N Prescaler
MARS
No-code Technicians
Thanks for the traffic...and now something really important :-) (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
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: 26 Dec 90 18:32:35 GMT
From: agate!linus!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU ( Avatar)
Subject: 5 WPM == ITU requirement
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
In article <58130008@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> holly@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback) writes:
+I always find it interesting that it is the long-term Technicians that
---------------------
+propose the two level or classes license structure. I wonder want the
+real motivation is to propose the present Techs should be grandfathered
+to full HF priviledges. I feel it more they want the full HF priviledges
+and don't want to learn the code. Actually there is more to learning
----------------------------
+the code on upgrading. It also is learning the answers to more theroy
+questions. Otherwise there would be few if any General class license
+holders.
Your errors in sentence structure and spelling notwithstanding, the real
reason lies in the perception that there is little if any difference between
the Tech (element 3, pre-Novice Enhancement) and General class licensee.
We already learned the code, and demonstrated that skill at 5 WPM.
In fact, some of us have technical skills that far surpass those of our
brethern with General tickets; the reason? While the Generals have been
busy blasting away at 14.313, the Techs have been building antennas for
OSCAR, amps for 1.2 GHz, linked microwave systems at 10 GHz and playing
with the packet and DSP techniques...done any of that stuff??!!
+
+Most countries that have fewer classes than the US still have some
+minimal requirement for minimal priviledges, and a full priviledge
+class for a more difficult exam along with a no-code license. This is
+a more reasonable proposal.
+
+Jim, WA6SDM
+jholly@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com
Most countries are not AMERICA! I would suggest you go have a look and
see how many jobs are available for buggy-whip makers and then get grip on
reality! This nonsense about CW has just about run it's course, most hams
are beginning to understand that the FCC isn't going to play the
"good-ole-boy" games that the OF's in the ARRL have been whimpering about
for the last 40 years. It's not 1955 anymore, in case you haven't
noticed!
A two-tier license structure, or whatever. Just so long as the CW test
is kicked back to 5 WPM. There's really no reason whatsoever for anything
faster in terms of the ITU regs, or the skill level of the operator.
If you could explain ONE real reason why that 13 WPM/Element 1b makes a
ham any better, I'd love to hear it! To my way of thinking, it's just
another stumbling block - another way of keeping the inner-sanctum of HF
from people that would be interested in it bringing technical growth to
it! (no :-)'s here...I'm very serious about this.)
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
------------------------------
Date: 27 Dec 90 07:02:59 GMT
From: pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!atn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Nishioka)
Subject: Looking for National 8629N Prescaler
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
I am looking for an DS-8629N Prescaler made by National Semiconductor.
It is an old chip which divides by 100, up to 120Mhz with a low signal
input and TTL output. A Plessy SP8629 is equivalent.
It is for an AM/FM Receiver Frequency display project that is 90% completed.
The project was orignally in Popular Electronics in 1978.
I have looked many catalogs including:
Jameco, JDR, Dick Smith, BCD Electronics, DC Electronics, Circuit
Specialists, Mouser, Digikey, Arrow, Allied, Newark, All Electronics,
Active, and Unicorn.
A while back when I started looking I called many businesses in
San Francisco and the East Bay.
Unfortunately, I don't have many ham radio catalogs to look in.
Does anyone know where I might find one? Can I substitute another circuit?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Nishioka KC6KHV atn@cory.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!cory!atn
974 Tulare Avenue, Albany CA 94707-2540 37'52N/122'15W +1 415 526 1818
------------------------------
Date: 27 Dec 90 05:05:24 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51!hca@nosc.mil (H. Atlas)
Subject: MARS
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Anyone ACTIVE in MARS please contact me via mail. Thank you!
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!hca
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!hca@nosc.mil
INET: hca@pnet51.orb.mn.org
------------------------------
Date: 27 Dec 90 05:11:01 GMT
From: lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu@tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: No-code Technicians
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
In article <5411@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>I guess the best part about all this noise about no-code licenses is that
>it does not matter. WE won, you lost and I'm going to savor the victory
>for some time to come. That is until I get motivated to start working
>for the total elimination of CW as a license requirement.
Excuse me while I get an airsickness bag from my flight kit.
OK...that's better.
John, that paragraph would have sounded more typical coming from a four-year-
old on a swingset. I expected better from you.
How long will it be before all the no-code licensees save ham radio?
Personally, I think the number is measured in centuries...
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory G. Woodbury
------------------------------
Date: 27 Dec 90 05:00:36 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!stanley@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (John Stanley)
Subject: Thanks for the traffic...and now something really important :-)
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
> In article <108@w3vh.UUCP> rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) writes:
> >
And now, since the no-code question has been beaten to death, let's
all start a spelling flame war. We can all pick apart every message with
any spelling or grammer errors, and argue endlessly about "which" and "who"
and "lose" and "loose", and "its" versus "it's".
This is heavy sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. Many of the people
who post to USEnet do not speak English as a first language, and some
seem to be struggling mightily with it at all. I have seen posts where
it took considerable effort to decipher the meaning of a request, but
nobody popped in with grammer lessons. Until rec.ham-radio.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Dec 90 06:30:28 GMT
From: att!emory!athena.cs.uga.edu!mcovingt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Thanks for the traffic...and now something really important :-)
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Apologies to anyone if it seemed that I was starting a "spelling flame war."
I did not originally criticize anyone's spelling or usage. I got involved
when someone else posted rules of grammar that were incorrect. I realized
this was off topic and was posting messages only to correct actual
misstatements of fact in my professional specialty (English syntax).
------------------------------
End of Info-Hams Digest
******************************