Tech Arsenal 1/Tech Arsenal (Arsenal Computer).ISO/tek-20/ih90576.zip/IH90576.TXT

Text File | 1990-12-31 | 24KB | 613 lines

From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!info-hams-relay Mon Dec 31 13:43:48 1990 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.63/waf)
    via UUCP; Mon, 31 Dec 90 19:30:16 EST
    for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com
    id aa12302; Mon, 31 Dec 90 13:43:48 GMT
Received: from UCSD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
    id AA03994; Mon, 31 Dec 90 07:43:38 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA15275
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Mon, 31 Dec 90 03:18:25 -0800 for claris!netcom!teda!fester.dnet!rideout
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA15265
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Mon, 31 Dec 90 03:18:23 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -finfo-hams-relay info-hams-list
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 03:18:21 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V90 #576
To: [e-mail]


Info-Hams Digest            Mon, 31 Dec 90       Volume 90 : Issue 576

Today's Topics:
                 "QSL" (Was Re: no "temporary KT" ?)
                              ARRL news
                      CODE on the "HF" CB band!
                           contacts wanted
                    Doing Crossword Puzzles in Ink
                  Equipment ideas for the Microsats
                FCC Rumor -- (But what if it is true?)
                     Future Ham needs to know ...
                    Ground Plane for my CB antenna
                   Info Request (beverage antennas)
                    Name of new TECHNICIAN LICENSE
  Question on Hallicrafters SX-146 / neat AM radio trick / receivers
 Questions on Hallicrafters SX-146 / neat AM radio trick / receivers
                   Rumors of ARRL appeal on No-Code
The comming no-code newbies... What has the FCC done to us this time?

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: 31 Dec 90 07:11:39 GMT
From: netcom![e-mail]  (Morris Jones)
Subject: "QSL" (Was Re: no "temporary KT" ?)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Heller) writes:
>       b . All I keep hearing on 10 novice phone is "QSL==QSL==QSL"  Sometimes
>I'm asked if I qsl, and I guess they need Penna (what for I don't know, but
>they're welcome to it) so all I can say is that I'm in the callbook and will
>be glad to send a card if I get theirs.  If this isn't what they mean, what the
>hell does it mean?

QSL    "I can acknowledge receipt."
QSL?    "Can you acknowledge receipt?"

Mojo AA4KB

--
[e-mail]          Site Coordinating Instructor, San Jose South
Morris "Mojo" Jones       Skilled Motorcycling And Rider Training (S.M.A.R.T.)
Campbell, CA              800-675-5559 ... 800-CC-RIDER ...  408-423-2212
AA4KB @ N6LDL.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA / aa4kb.ampr.org / netcom![e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 05:16:01 GMT
From: n8emr![e-mail]  (Root)
Subject: ARRL news
To: [e-mail]



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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:36:43 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!athena.cs.uga.edu![e-mail]  (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: CODE on the "HF" CB band!
To: [e-mail]

Are you sure you weren't hearing an image of something 910kHz higher?
What are your IF frequencies?

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:11:32 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc![e-mail]  (Tad Cook)
Subject: contacts wanted
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Heller) writes:
> I'm at a loss to understand this posting.
> If I read it properly, Carl Hovey, who allegedly has
> an Advanced license, and a rig, albeit one opf
> of the highly touted and heavily advertised
> Jap riceboxes (admittedly the Icom lines have
  ^^^

Please don't use racist slurs on rec.ham-radio.



Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 05:53:02 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc![e-mail]  (Tad Cook)
Subject: Doing Crossword Puzzles in Ink
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry Scott) writes:
> My wife (yes, she does crossword puzzles with a pen), upon hearing about
> the no-code Tech license, said "But I don't want to talk on the radio, I
> just want to learn Morse Code !".  After achieving Tetris level 9 height
> 4, she's looking for a new game.  I gave her the "Tune in the World"
> tapes.  I'm curious to see how far she goes.

I had a roomate a few years ago who enjoyed doing puzzles and was rather
proud of her Mensa membership.  She saw me operate CW on HF, and thought it
would be a fun challenge.

She got a copy of TUNE IN THE WORLD and learned the code well enough to
pass the Novice IN ABOUT AN HOUR!  She took the exam, and became KA7QOS.
She NEVER got on the air though....."What would I talk about??"

Wonder why I was skeptical before the no-code license when folks were
saying they CAN'T learn the code?  :)


Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 10:47:49 GMT
From: w3vh![e-mail]  (Rolfe Tessem)
Subject: Equipment ideas for the Microsats
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>It rather depends on your equipment's ills. If you have a 2 meter transmitter
>or amplifier that puts out broadband noise, a common problem, a 2 meter
>filter on the 2 meter output will do wonders while a cavity on the 70 cm
>side won't help at all.

Correct.  My point was that of all the folks I've talked to with desense
problems (which encompasses a wide variety of equipment configurations)
I haven't found anyone for whom the *Spectrum* filter did any good.  Lots
of people have bought these things, only to throw them into their junkbox
the next day; if yours helps out with Mode J desense, then you're definitely
the exception.

Rolfe


--
Rolfe Tessem        | Lucky Duck Productions
[e-mail]        | 17 Saint Luke's Place
{uunet}!w3vh!rolfe  | New York, NY 10014
[phone]        | [phone]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:44:51 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!wells![e-mail]  (Dave Heller)
Subject: FCC Rumor -- (But what if it is true?)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Grubs) writes:
>
>  > From: [e-mail] (Dave Heller)
>  > Date: 30 Dec 90 04:47:57 GMT
>  > Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058
>  > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>  > Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>  >
>  > This handicapped waiver business is a farce.  Let's see what a few of
>  > the
>  > "handicapped" think about it.
>
> Speaking as one with muscular dystrophy, I find your total insensitivity to
> be objectionable and offensive in the extreme.
>
> And to think, your callsign indicates that you are one of these highly
> superior Extra Class licensees. You, my friend, are a living example of what
> we've been saying here - learning code is not a measure of intelligence or
> education.
>
> Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if the opposite may be true. It is a
> recognized phenomenon of psychology that people with certain severe brain
> disorders can be taught to perform simple mechanical skills with a high
> degree of proficiency. The theory, I guess, is that higher order brain
> functioning does not help and may even hinder the accomplishment of skills
> that do not require reasoning ability. That would certainly explain you and
> your fellow Penn Wireless Association members.
>
> --
> Jim Grubs - via the friendly folks at UUNET

If you noticed, I mentioned that as I understand the farcial waiver business
I'd have no big trouble getting a waiver myself.  Of course I didn't - was
about 30 years too soon getting the X.
What does Frank Spicer - totally blind and deaf, and no youngster either - thinkof it?  Ask him.  He EARNED his Extra.
Do you remember Clif Korne, K9EAB, now S.K., the ultra proficient ham in the
iron lung?  He didn't need a waiver;  probably couldn't have got one because
he could pass the test without.

The real answer is:  It's true that -maybe- some handicapped persons can't pass
the code test because of some physical failing.  It also appears that many
who have no claim to being "handicapped" can't pass the test.  It's too damn
bad that each and every one of us can't do everything.  There are a hell of
a lot of things I can't do because of physical limitations.
And the whole thing started because Pres. Bush got a bug up his ass and sent
a memo to FCC.

What credentials does the average MD or DO have for deciding whether you or I
can't pass the CW test "because of ***"?   Hell, most of them are sloppy about
deciding who's qualified for a handicapped parking permit.

    I will repeat:  it's a farce.  Is your muscular distrophy limiting you
more than Frank Spicer's blindness/deafness?  Or maybe K3KTH.  I haven't heard
or seen ofhim for a few years, but had the pleasure of meeting him often many
years ago.  Bill was, of course, wheelchair-bound;  restrained because of his
spastic condition.  Intelligent?  No, brilliant.  He was able to send by
foot, and passed the test because he wanted the ticket.

I expected - even hoped for - some >comments< on my posting.   Let's have more.

Incidentally, about the no-code:  It's an elegant solution;  it should work.

73 and hny to all

I'

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:19:58 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!wells![e-mail]  (Dave Heller)
Subject: Future Ham needs to know ...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kim Greer -- rjj) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
> >Get a current copy of "The Radio Amateur's Handbook" published by the
> >ARRL. ....... Pick up a copy of
> >the "FCC Rulebook" also by the ARRL and read through the regulations.
> ...... Then get a copy of one of the Q&A manuals and read through it
>
> >Gary KE4ZV
>
>   Thanks for this useful info.  Would someone supply an address to write to


you can order from ARRL - Newington CT 06lll, or any local radio equipment
seller should be able to furnish.  Or find any of the local hams.





You'll have to find some of the locals anyway to be tested for  your license.

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

Date: 30 Dec 90 02:56:10 GMT
From: simasd!ncr-sd!crash!nusdecs!nusjecs!ozonebbs![e-mail]  (Steven Rubin)
Subject: Ground Plane for my CB antenna
To: [e-mail]

I am setting up a CB in my house, and I am having problems with a ground
plane.  The equipment works fine in my car, so I know its not broken or
anything.  I want to put the antenna on my roof, but I am having trouble
finding a good ground plane.  The manager at Radio Shack suggest getting a
peice of sheetmetal for a ground plane.  How big should I make the sheet
metal?


---
Steven Rubin                                           @      @
{netcom, crash!nusdecs}!nusjecs!ozonebbs!steven           oo
Disclaimer: I don't even speak for myself!           \__________/

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 01:58:03 GMT
From: agate!linus!philabs!ttidca![e-mail]  (Paul Blumstein)
Subject: Info Request (beverage antennas)
To: [e-mail]

There is a lot of technical info on Dr. Beverage's antenna in The ARRL
Antenna Handbbok.

=====================================================================
Paul Blumstein    |         BE KIND TO SMOKERS
Citicorp/TTI      |        we won't be around much longer
Santa Monica, CA  +--------------------------------------------------
{rutgers,philabs,psivax,pyramid}!ttidca!paulb  or  [e-mail]
DISCLAIMER:  Don't believe everything I hear or anything you say

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 05:48:01 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc![e-mail]  (Tad Cook)
Subject: Name of new TECHNICIAN LICENSE
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Miller) writes:
>
>    a. For UQC (underwater telephone) when voice reverb or s/n was
>       too poor. The manual CW button  on the box was good for
>       the occasional 'R'  or 'C'. (But the other station needed
>       to know morse too. Send slow so they can read the table off
>       the side of the box!)

Tell us more about this "underwater telephone".  Is this for two subs in
the same area to talk to each other?  How did it work?



Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 10:38:40 GMT
From: amdahl!JUTS![e-mail]  (kpc)
Subject: Question on Hallicrafters SX-146 / neat AM radio trick / receivers
To: [e-mail]

I don't subscribe here, but I have questions that I hope a kind reader
or two will be able to help answer for me.

1.  I own a Hallicrafters SX-146 receiver, and I wonder:

    o From a practical perspective, does it do anything that, say,
    one of the new mini Sony receivers that costs one or two
    hundred dollars doesn't do?  It has all kinds of switches and
    dials for sidebands and all, but I don't know whether they
    have been superseded in the new receivers or not.

    o Does it receive any frequencies that one of the new
    receivers don't?  Does it receive weaker transmissions?

    o What kind of a resale value does it have?  I have the manual
    and schematics, and as I haven't used the receiver for several
    years, and just moved into a very small apartment, I will
    probably want to sell it.  Would it be appropriate to ask on
    rec.ham-radio.swap?  (I won't unless somebody sends me email
    and says it's OK.)

2.  I used to take an old tube AM radio and attach a long coil of wire
to the tuning capacitor and get shortwave transmissions.  I wonder:

    o Can modern radios of any kind do this?  I tried it on a new
    GE AM radio and had no luck except for a CW-like transmission
    that might have been from any frequency including the top end
    of the AM spectrum.

    o This, IMHO, is really neat!  :-).  (I got Canada and the
    USSR, I think, and other countries.).  Have others discovered
    this?  Could a similar trick be used to effect transmission?

3.  I wonder about the the modern mini receivers:

    o Do they have limiter circuits to prevent reception of
    particular frequencies?

    o Do they use jumpers or more permanent methods of limiting
    frequencies that one can get?  Is it a legal requirement?

4.  I probably won't be getting one anytime soon, but if I do get a
mini receiver (the Hallicrafters is too big for me, believe it or
not), what type and/or brand do you recommend?  I would want a small
receiver that receives lots of frequencies.

It would be wonderful if you could reply by email.

Thanks!
--
If you do not receive a reply from me, please resend your mail;
occasionally this site's mail gets delayed.

Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 10:39:16 GMT
From: amdahl!JUTS![e-mail]  (kpc)
Subject: Questions on Hallicrafters SX-146 / neat AM radio trick / receivers
To: [e-mail]

I don't subscribe here, but I have questions that I hope a kind reader
or two will be able to help answer for me.

1.  I own a Hallicrafters SX-146 receiver, and I wonder:

    o From a practical perspective, does it do anything that, say,
    one of the new mini Sony receivers that costs one or two
    hundred dollars doesn't do?  It has all kinds of switches and
    dials for sidebands and all, but I don't know whether they
    have been superseded in the new receivers or not.

    o Does it receive any frequencies that one of the new
    receivers don't?  Does it receive weaker transmissions?

    o What kind of a resale value does it have?  I have the manual
    and schematics, and as I haven't used the receiver for several
    years, and just moved into a very small apartment, I will
    probably want to sell it.  Would it be appropriate to ask on
    rec.ham-radio.swap?  (I won't unless somebody sends me email
    and says it's OK.)

2.  I used to take an old tube AM radio and attach a long coil of wire
to the tuning capacitor and get shortwave transmissions.  I wonder:

    o Can modern radios of any kind do this?  I tried it on a new
    GE AM radio and had no luck except for a CW-like transmission
    that might have been from any frequency including the top end
    of the AM spectrum.

    o This, IMHO, is really neat!  :-).  (I got Canada and the
    USSR, I think, and other countries.).  Have others discovered
    this?  Could a similar trick be used to effect transmission?

3.  I wonder about the the modern mini receivers:

    o Do they have limiter circuits to prevent reception of
    particular frequencies?

    o Do they use jumpers or more permanent methods of limiting
    frequencies that one can get?  Is it a legal requirement?

4.  I probably won't be getting one anytime soon, but if I do get a
mini receiver (the Hallicrafters is too big for me, believe it or
not), what type and/or brand do you recommend?  I would want a small
receiver that receives lots of frequencies.

It would be wonderful if you could reply by email.

Thanks!
--
If you do not receive a reply from me, please resend your mail;
occasionally this site's mail gets delayed.

Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:51:56 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc![e-mail]  (Tad Cook)
Subject: Rumors of ARRL appeal on No-Code
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Grubs) writes:
>
>  > From: [e-mail] ("Paul W. SCHLECK")
>  > Date: 30 Dec 90 19:24:00 GMT
>  > Organization: The Internet
>  > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>  > Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>  >
>  > Much has been said, mostly rumor, in this newsgroup about the ARRL's
>  > possible reaction to the recent FCC decision in PR Docket 90-55,
>
> What "rumor"? Price was quoted in a W1AW bulletin as considering filing a
> Petition for Reconsideration.

Reference please?  I have on file ALL of the ARRL bulletins for the past
few years.  I cannot find any reference to this.  In case there is some
confusion over "nocode" Techs and No Code for the disabled, here are
ALL of the recent ARRL bulletins transmitted by W1AW on both of these
subjects:

QST DE W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 53  ARLB053

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 06:42:15 GMT
From: att!emory!athena.cs.uga.edu![e-mail]  (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: The comming no-code newbies... What has the FCC done to us this time?
To: [e-mail]

Well said, sir!  Any radio amateurs who will not tolerate modernization
of the license requirements are digging the grave of the Amateur Radio
Service.

To put it bluntly,
  (1) We are no longer training the Signal Corps for World War I;
  (2) The FCC does not give us spectrum primarily to preserve traditions.

I use CW myself; it's a nice mode, but it's no longer the only mode
we've got. I sometimes think the no-code license would have been easier
to introduce in 1950 than in 1990; 40 years of ossification have set in,
and too many hams have gotten the idea that licenses are a matter of
tradition or simple drudgery rather than technical qualification!

The question I would put to those who continue to oppose no-code
(including, perhaps, some of the ARRL leadership) is this:
Will there ever be a time in the future when license requirements
are different from what they are now?  Do we modernize, or do we
fossilize?

I thought about no-code for a long time before taking a position on the
issue. Apparently, this is a very rare practice; most people made up their
minds before they knew exactly what was proposed or why.

I came out only mildly in support of no-code, but I'm gradually turning into
a raving fanatical defender of the no-code license simply because the
things that are said *against* it are so dumb!

Welcome to amateur radio. Let me know if I can help.  vy 73 de N4TMI

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
I was surprised to read that the ARRL is considering
opposing the new code free Technician  license.  This is
a really bad idea for at least two reasons:

1)  This sounds like a way to eliminate what little good
will may remain between the bureaucrats of the FCC and
ham radio.  The FCC plan gives us a useful code free license
class with little or no cost to the government.  Cost is
everything to the government these days.

2)  The idea is a basically a good one.

I've taught a number of Novice and Technician classes,
and I've seen first hand the loss of good potential
hams to the code.  It seems like a lot of folks have
a lot of trouble with the code, and an almost equal
number have trouble with theory.  Now I can get
the ones with theory problems on the air as novices,
and the code haters can go straight to tech.  I am
sure that anyone who takes the time to learn the
theory to the technician level has more than a
casual interest in radio, and won't abuse the
our privileges.  This will be really great for schools,
who can more easily justify "time on task" for study
of electronics than for study of an economically useless
skill like code.

I urge everyone to contact your ARRL director and urge
them to support the FCC code free proposal.

73,

Jim Howard, N4WBO @ N4HOG.VA.USA.NA

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
So where is it, Jim?  You seemed EXTREMELY certain that there was
a reference to Larry Price in a "W1AW Bulletin", to the point that
you acted like it should be obvious to anyone.

Where is it?



Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

.

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

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