QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/infoham/940130.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 16.8 KB

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 04:30:10 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #130
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu, 10 Feb 94       Volume 94 : Issue  130

Today's Topics:
                   Anyone Hear from Space Shuttle?
                             ARRL CONTEST
                      Field Day Logging Program
                     FY5YP,TO5M,ZS3AW QSL routes?
                         Golf Causes Cancer!
                       Radar Detector Detectors
                        SAREX Keps for Feb 10
                     Smithsonian amateur station
                      Vertical Antennas (2 msgs)
                                W2NSD

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: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:56:02 GMT
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com![e-mail]
Subject: Anyone Hear from Space Shuttle?
To: [e-mail]

Has anyone heard the shuttle on 2mtrs? With 3 hams out there and
a broken satellite, perhaps they have some time on their hands.
Or just too busy trying to fix it.  Where Do I listen? 145.55?

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

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 02:54:00 GMT
From: ax!sec21![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL CONTEST
To: [e-mail]

                 ALL,

      I hope to meet everyone February 19 and 20 during the
      CW ARRL CONTEST, specially on 20, 15 and 10 m.

      Best 73, Gerson Rissin - PY1APS, PY7APS
                               ex PY0APS

     ############################ Super Tag #############################
     #                                                                  #
     #         [] Gerson Rissin - Rio de Janeiro, RJ. - BRASIL          #
     #

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 07:39:41 -0500
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Field Day Logging Program
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan Bloom)
wrote:

> The problem with logging programs for Field Day is that most of the
> operators will be "learning on the job."  I have found that I can keep
> the log and dupe sheets on paper much faster than most operators can
> work the computer, at least until they have a few hours of practice
> under their belts.
>
> If most of your operators already are familiar with one of the popular
> loging programs, then use that one.  If not, then pick the program that
> is easiest/fastest to learn to use and have a training session some
> evening before Field Day starts.
>

At Penn Wireless Association, we've been using logging software at Field
Day for about four years now.  At first only about three stations used it,
but their performance was so much superior to the paper loggers that we
shifted universally.  Despite sagging attendance at Field Day, we're still
fielding eight to ten stations primarily because the computer eliminates
the need for a human logger.

As far as we're concerned, any learning problems are worth suffering
through, because of the ultimate gains.

--
73  de  John Taylor  W3ZID
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 23:32:30 GMT
From: netcon!bongo!netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: FY5YP,TO5M,ZS3AW QSL routes?
To: [e-mail]

I'm wondering if anybody can tell me the current QSL routing for
FY5YP, TO5M, and ZS3AW.  The first two were worked this year and
the latter was worked a couple of times in the early 1970s.  ZS3AW
was in what is now Namibia (V5) but I'd sure like to know how to
track him down.  Thanks and 73 de Sandy  WA6BXH/7J1ABV   [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Feb 1994 06:17:35 -0500
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.@@library.ucla.edu
Subject: Golf Causes Cancer!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Alan Bloom wrote:
> to investigate the death rates of golf course managers.  The study
> found that golf course managers have death rates from several kinds
> of cancer that are significantly higher than the national norm.  The
>
> Sounds exactly like the famous Milham study of amateur radio operators
> which implied that exposure to RF radiation causes cancer.  I wonder
> what the cause is for the golf course managers:  too much fresh air?

I'd venture a guess that the death rate is probably due to the exposure to
chemicals and insecticides used in grounds keeping.  This is also the
theoretical reason why Long Island, NY has the highest incident of breast and
testiclar cancer.  Except in L.I.'s case, it is believed to be residue of
chemicals, (DDT the most likely culpret), used decades ago that has seeped
into the aquafer.  Most L.I. residents get their drinking water from wells.

There is also the possability that some golf courses may be near high
tension lines or broadcast towers.


 < ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
 <                         "Big Steve" Coletti                         >
 <         Shortwave Listener, Broadcaster, Computer Consultant        >
 <                      and all around nice guy                        >
 < Internet: [e-mail] ==== [e-mail] >
 <   UUCP: [e-mail] ==== [e-mail]   >
 <    Fidonet: 1:278/712  US Mail: P.O. Box 396, New York, NY 10002    >
 <                        Voice: [phone]                       >
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:27:08 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: Radar Detector Detectors
To: [e-mail]

hamilton on BIX ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (SKLOSS, TIMOTHY WILLIAM) writes:

: >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Gutknecht) writes...
: >>  ... radar detector "detectors" ...

: But no sooner have radar detector detectors arrived, than I see ads now
: for "undetectable" radar detectors.  Right here in front of me, I have
: one in a Herrington catalog (Ph 800-622-5221/FAX [phone]) for a
: Bel SuperWideband "Undetectable" Radar/LaserDetector for $339.  Do you
: know if in fact these "undetectable" detectors are really undetectable?

It is certainly possible.  Inexpensive radar detectors inject the
unit's local oscillator signal directly into mixer located right in the
waveguide antenna -- the "detector detector" operates by receiving the
L.O. signal that leaks out the waveguide.

A radar detector that used a stage of RF amplification between the
antenna and the mixer (where the L.O. is injected) would reduce unwanted
radiation to negligible levels.

AL N1AL

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

Date: 10 Feb 94 10:00:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SAREX Keps for Feb 10
To: [e-mail]

SB SAREX @ AMSAT $STS-60.015
SAREX Keps for Feb. 10

Gil Carman, WA5NOM reports that there was a separation burn yesterday
afternoon which raised the Shuttle perigee altitude about 3 n.mi.  The
following are elements from the post-burn vector.

STS-60
1 22977U 94006A   94041.68880588  .00001098 -91503-7  80760-5 0   143
2 22977  56.9892 183.8290 0006683 303.1211  56.9216 15.71605210  1146

Satellite: STS-60
Catalog number: 22977
Epoch time:      94041.68880588   =    (10 FEB 94   16:31:52.82 UTC)
Element set:     014
Inclination:       56.9892 deg
RA of node:       183.8290 deg           Space Shuttle Flight STS-60
Eccentricity:     .0006683              Keplerian Element set JSC-014
Arg of perigee:   303.1211 deg          from NASA flight Day 8 vector
Mean anomaly:      56.9216 deg
Mean motion:   15.71605210 rev/day              G. L. Carman
Decay rate:      1.098e-05 rev/day^2      NASA Johnson Space Center
Epoch rev:             114
Checksum:              301

Submitted by Frank H. Bauer, KA3HDO, for the SAREX Working Group

/EX

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

Date: 7 Feb 94 20:18:00 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!yuma![e-mail]
Subject: Smithsonian amateur station
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B Levin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harold E Cheyney) writes:
>   I remember reading something on this group about an amateur station located
>   somewhere in the Smithsonian in D.C..  Anyone know anything about it?
>You'll find NN3SI (yes, really) in the lower level of the Technology
>building (whatever it's called these days - the big one next to the
>Natural History building) in a walk through area covering the topic of
>Communication.
> /JBL   KD1ON

The American History Museum is where I found it in Dec '93.  They ask that
you call a day or two ahead to reserve time for operating, and I've left
the numbers in my '93 book at home.
If I remember correctly, the exhibit is in the north-west corner on the
second floor.
Looking forward to another call from NN3SI,
Galen, KF0YJ

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:46:31 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: Vertical Antennas
To: [e-mail]

If you compare a vertical over an infinite ground plane to a dipole
(or any other antenna) in free space, you are comparing apples to oranges.

When thinking about antenna gain, it helps immensely to remember the
principle of conservation of energy.  Nearly all full-sized antennas are
essentially 100% efficent.  That means that a dipole, a vertical, a
rhombic, a Yagi beam, etc. all radiate 1 watt for every watt applied
through the feedline.  To obtain gain, the antenna directs more of its
signal in one direction and less in another.

Any antenna over an infinite ground plane has a 3 dB (2x power) advantage
over an antenna in free space.  That's because it only has 1/2 of all
possible directions in which to send its signal.

Consider a vertical dipole in free space.  You could insert a horizontal
infinite ground plane at the feedpoint without changing the radiation
pattern.  Now you have two verticals, one pointing up, one pointing down.
Each vertical radiates half the power of the original dipole.  Note
that the upper vertical (over a groundplane) can generate the same
field strength as the dipole (in free space), but with only 1/2 the power.
So a 1/4-wave vertical over an infinite ground plane has 3 dB power "gain"
over a dipole in free space.

Now consider a dipole suspended a half wavelength or more over an infinite
ground plane.  In some directions, it will have 6 dB gain over a dipole
in free space, which gives 3 dB gain over the vertical.  In other directions,
the field will be zero.  If you averaged the radiated power over all
directions (half sphere), you would find it sums to the same power as the
1/4-wave vertical (also averaged over all directions.)

AL N1AL

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

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 02:00:41 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: Vertical Antennas
To: [e-mail]

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Bloom) writes:
: >Consider a vertical dipole in free space.  You could insert a horizontal
: >infinite ground plane at the feedpoint without changing the radiation
: >pattern.  Now you have two verticals, one pointing up, one pointing down.
: >Each vertical radiates half the power of the original dipole.

: True because each has half the current that flows in the entire dipole.

No, the current is the same, but the power is halved.  There are (at least)
two ways to see this:  1)  Only 1/2 the voltage is applied to each 1/4-wave
element.  Since power = voltage times current, the power is 1/2.
2)  The element is only 1/2 as long.  So the same current results in
only 1/2 as much power radiated.

Actually, 2) can be derived from 1).  (Left as an exercise for the reader :=)

: >Note
: >that the upper vertical (over a groundplane) can generate the same
: >field strength as the dipole (in free space), but with only 1/2 the power.

: No, I disagree with the way you're saying this. The upper vertical in
: this thought experiment has half the current of the dipole and so generates
: half the field. The ground mirror is supplying a 3 db reflection gain that
: makes up for the lower field produced by the current in the upper vertical.

Nope, see above.

: >Now consider a dipole suspended a half wavelength or more over an infinite
: >ground plane.  In some directions, it will have 6 dB gain over a dipole
: >in free space, which gives 3 dB gain over the vertical.  In other directions,
: >the field will be zero.  If you averaged the radiated power over all
: >directions (half sphere), you would find it sums to the same power as the
: >1/4-wave vertical (also averaged over all directions.)

: True, but gain in the main lobe (what we normally mean when we talk about
: gain) is 2X that of the vertical. And in the real world of lossy ground
: planes that make poor current mirrors, the horizontal dipole has a greater
: efficiency.

But to get the 6 dB gain, the dipole depends on ground reflections, just
as the vertical does.  It gets very complex trying to compare ground losses
of ground-mounted verticals versus horizontal dipoles because of the many
variables involved (type of earth, number of radials, height above ground,
vertical radiation angle, etc. etc.).  That's why assuming a perfect ground
gives a much more usable standard of comparison.

AL N1AL

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

Date: 10 Feb 1994 05:36:26 GMT
From: agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: W2NSD
To: [e-mail]

There was an item in Science magazine, 4 Feb issue, says Wayne is about to
publish a magazine titled "Cold Fusion"
--
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

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

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:17:17 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!nic.hookup.net!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!admii!ovation!ramcad.pica.army.mil!mellis@network.
To: [e-mail]

References <ah301-260194121225@129.228.248.39>, <2i8rnf$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>m
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Mark Ellis)
Subject : Re: htx-202 or dj-162 ?


>>>I'd like to get comments and opinions from people in the net who
>>>have actually used both.
>>>currently, I am leaning towards the dj-162 because of its wide
>>>receive.
>>
>>The HTX202 is a good radio.  It comes with the CTCSS, DTMF squelch, and
>>it can store telephone numbers.  It has 14 memories, I think.
>>
>>     Matt Roberts N3GZM
>
>I'll second the motion.  The HTX-202 is also more sensitive on receive
>than my ICOM-27H, of a late 70's or early 80's vintage.  And the price
>is right when Radio Shack runs one of their periodic "sales".
>
>73...Jim
>N2VNO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my htx-202 is still working after I dropped it last nite. Of course,
it was cushioned by the concrete floor it landed on :-). Or maybe :-(.

   I got mine on sale for $200 last summer.

     --- Mark Ellis n2wzb

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #130
******************************
******************************