QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/equip/940062.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-14 | 11KB

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 04:30:22 PST
From: Ham-Equip Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Equip Digest V94 #62
To: Ham-Equip


Ham-Equip Digest            Sun, 13 Mar 94       Volume 94 : Issue   62

Today's Topics:
                    Best cars for mobile HF/VHF??
                 Diesel or Taurus fr HF/VHF mobile??
                    Need mobile tribander advice.
              Wanted: "This Week in Amateur Radio" Info
              Wanted: Info on programming Wilson WH6016B
                         WANTED Technics 1200

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 Ham-Equip Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-equip".

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: 12 Mar 1994 15:36:12 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Best cars for mobile HF/VHF??
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Look at what the cops are driving.

Good idea, Gary.  Just don't forget to leave off the whitewalls!

-N3NKI

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

Date: 11 Mar 1994 19:29:39 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!udel!news.udel.edu!brahms.udel.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Diesel or Taurus fr HF/VHF mobile??
To: [e-mail]

 I got a variety of responses for a car which would be good for 100 watts
or so of HF and 50 or so of 2 meter and 440 radio. Criteria were lack of
interference from car into receiver and from transmitter into auto
electronics.

Diesels and the Taurus were among those favored. Anyone else have comments
on these choices.

Tnx agn   Bob

--
Bob Penneys, WN3K   Frankford Radio Club  Internet: [e-mail]
Work: Ham Radio Outlet (Delaware) [phone];  fax [phone]
Mail at home:  12 East Mill Station Drive   Newark, DE 19711  USA

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

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 22:40:55 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!pitstop.mcd.mot.com!mcdphx![e-mail]
Subject: Need mobile tribander advice.
To: [e-mail]

I have a Kenwood 742 configured with 220, 440, and 1200. I took out the 2 meter
band module that originally came with it and sold it. Kenwood does not offer
this radio in this configuration (in the U.S., anyway) but it works great! I
have had absolutely no problems with this radio in a year and it has a lot of
features. My only complaint is the microphone - the DTMF buttons are hard to
push.

I also have an older Icom 901 that has also been a great radio. The only problem
is that you can only monitor 2 bands at a time, but you can add a lot of band
modules. However, the band modules are more expensive than Kenwood's. Icom says
they cost more because of the fiber optic interface designed into the band
modules. I know that fiber isn't cheap, so I tend to believe them.

A friend of mine who works at a local ham store has been using an Icom Delta-100
for a couple of months now. He really likes it a lot, as well as the Kenwood
742/942 series. His only complaints about the Icom are minor and he has no
problem recommending it, either.

If I were buying all over again, I'd still get the Kenwood because I don't want
2 meters. But if I wanted 2 meters over 220 then I'd probably go with the Icom,
but only because I know someone who works there, not because it's superior to
the Kenwood.

Hope this helps!

John
--
John A. Johnson  N5NHH      \           "A spare tube & a radio - don't leave
Systems Engineer             \ __o                         home without them!"
Motorola Computer Group      _'\< _
Dallas, Texas               (*)/'(*)     [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Mar 1994 18:46:03 -0800
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com![e-mail]
Subject: Wanted: "This Week in Amateur Radio" Info
To: [e-mail]

I heard a tape of "This Week in Amateur Radio" from the Omega Network.  I
was wondering if anyone had anymore info on when this is broadcasted,
what freqs, etc.  I am mainly interested in which freqs I can hear it on
here in Los Angeles, California.

--
------------------------------------------
John "Tremolo" Molson ([e-mail])
PGP 2.3 Public Key Available Upon Request.
------------------------------------------

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

Date: 12 Mar 1994 11:36:26 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!montego![e-mail]
Subject: Wanted: Info on programming Wilson WH6016B
To: [e-mail]

    I have a couple of Wilson model WH-6016B VHF mobile radios that were
obtained by aFrom [e-mail]  Sat Mar 12 12:31:59 1994
Received: from network.ucsd.edu by ucsd.edu; id MAA01245
    sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun via ESMTP
    Sat, 12 Mar 1994 12:31:58 -0800 for <[e-mail]>
Received: from localhost by network.ucsd.edu (8.6.4/UCSDGENERIC.4)
    id MAA15313 to [e-mail]; Sat, 12 Mar 1994 12:28:41 -0800
Received: from USENET by network.ucsd.edu with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail]);
    contact [e-mail] if you have questions.
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 15:18:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tired and Weary
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!bongo![e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
References: , <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: lojack detector wanted

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>
>We have a possible situation with a small stick on transmitter
>on one or more of our vehicles, similar to lojack but this
>we understand is an older model, larger, requiring welding
>etc....we are an environmental group who has also criticized
>police misconduct.

Paranoid ravings deleted.

    Why don't you grow a pair of balls and provide some useful
data? Besides a real name and site, a real city and a few other things
might solicit some help. But if you are not willing to give
information, why should anyone give you information?
--
Julian Macassey, N6ARE  [e-mail] Voice: [phone]
Paper Mail: Apt 225, 975 Hancock Ave, West Hollywood, California 90069-4074

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

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 17:13:57 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: WANTED Technics 1200
To: [e-mail]

Looking for a Technics 1200 turntable.  Are you getting rid of yours?  Please c
ontact me.  As a matter of fact I will buy more than one.  Does not matter the
year it was bought.  Come on vinyl is dying anyway so send me your information
on your used Technics 1200 turntable.

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

Date: 13 Mar 1994 00:12:27 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2ltfkh$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: GPS Receiver Boards

[e-mail] (Bdale Garbee) writes:

>All give good results for position and velocity applications.  If you want to
>fly them on weather balloons and such, the Motorola behaves best, holding the
>last valid position when you hit the COCOM restriction height, the Trimble
>resets to their corporate offices in CA, reportedly.  I don't know anyone who
>has flown a Rockwell in this application.

Apparently the restriction is only required when you exceed certain
altitude AND speed limit simultaneously.  Our group has successfully
used GPS (the Rockwell card, I am ~90% sure) on scientific balloons
(~125,000 feet, but typically much less than a hundred miles per hour).
We were warned that early versions of the board we used would not
work, because it unnecesarily restricted at either a certain altitude
OR speed limit.

Contact the companies for futher details.
--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]
    Clipper: Privacy for people who have nothing to hide.

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

Date: 12 Mar 1994 22:27:29 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!gag.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2lh20r$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: GPS Receiver Boards

[e-mail] wrote:

: I've sent for the specs from Motorola...

: If the product is up to snuff...

I've worked with, or have friends who have worked with, the Rockwell, Trimble,
and Motorola receiver cores.  Concensus is that the Motorola core is the best
for time-transfer applications.  The Trimble has a well-defined but annoying
jitter to the 1pps signal, the Rockwell gives a 1pps signal that is precise
and fairly stable but not aligned with the edge of a second, complicating
host software.

All give good results for position and velocity applications.  If you want to
fly them on weather balloons and such, the Motorola behaves best, holding the
last valid position when you hit the COCOM restriction height, the Trimble
resets to their corporate offices in CA, reportedly.  I don't know anyone who
has flown a Rockwell in this application.

The Rockwell has a GaAs frontend so can work well with non-amplified patch
antennas over short coax runs.  The Trimble and Motorola units benefit from
an amplified patch or better antenna.

In summary, if ya gotta do a group purchase, go with the Mot units, and if the
price is good, I know a dozen or so folks (working on the AMSAT P3D GPS
project) who are likely to be interested in buying one to play with.

73 - Bdale, N3EUA

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

End of Ham-Equip Digest V94 #62
******************************