QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/941005.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 24KB

Date: Thu,  8 Sep 94 09:58:48 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1005
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu,  8 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1005

Today's Topics:
                                (none)
                    A Repeater on 147.555 (3 msgs)
                       A Repeater on 147.555?!?
                     Hiram Maxim's Flying Machine
                          Hooray to the FCC!
                       Mods for Kenwood TH-79A
              Need comments on 2 Ham books @ Radio Shack
                   NYS Ham License Plates (2 msgs)
                       PACTOR changeover timing
                  Re: RFI Free PC Computer Cabinet?
                    RFI Free PC Computer Cabinet?
                      VEC Testing Help (2 msgs)
                       Zia Information (2 msgs)

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: 8 Sep 94 14:49:54 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (none)
To: [e-mail]

     SUBSCRIBE INFO-HAMS PETER BULLOUS

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

Date: Wed,  7 Sep 1994 16:06:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!mhv.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!digcir![e-mail]
Subject: A Repeater on 147.555
To: [e-mail]

 -=> Quoting James W Chandler Iii to All <=-

 JWCI> The other bands are boring and there is no one to talk to there
 JWCI> anyway. Two meters is the place to be.  Even HF is boring.

 JWCI> BTW, anyone want to sell any of there boring HF, 440 or 1.2 stuff?


What a setup!  Capitalism at work!!!

73 de N6NYX
... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date: Wed,  7 Sep 1994 16:02:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!mhv.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!digcir![e-mail]
Subject: A Repeater on 147.555
To: [e-mail]

Having been TASMA Chairman for 1992 and 1993, I saw a great deal of problems
when we asked repeater pair applicants to use existing equipment.

Repeaters are BIG status symbols for some Amateurs!  The only saving grace
was that the large majority of Hams feel that:

1)    Simplex should be used whenever practical.

2)    Repeaters should be put up ONLY to provide service where there was
    no prior capability.  This includes adding machines to cover similar
    areas in order to alleviate congestion.

3)    Although the FCC prohibits repeater inputs/outputs between
    144.0-144.5 and 145.5-146.0Mhz, every Amateur repeater owner
    should educate him/herself with the locally accepted bandplan
    through the local frequency coordinator.

The REAL problem with frequency coordinators is that they CANNOT mandate
whether or not a repeater goes on the air.  If I had that power when
I was TASMA chairman, I would have set minimum usage requirements on a TIME
basis prior to allowing transmission.  You see, there is no requirement
in the FCC rules that a coordinated repeater MUST be used.  There is only
a requirement that it occupies a pair of frequencies.  With all
repeater frequencies co-channeled and with 15kHz channel spacings
it is no wonder that the more selfish Amateurs start to lay claim to any
and all simplex space outside of the FCC prohibited areas in order
to avoid complaints.

Do you know why they don't care about simplexer's complaints?
It is because ONLY REPEATERS are afforded protection from interference
through coordination.  This is an FCC rule that needs to be changed.
Coordination should be required for ANY fixed frequency operation
lasting more than a month or so, including packet nodes, simpatches,
and regularly scheduled simplex activities like nets.

Its a shame to see a valuable communications resource squandered
by a few self-centered egotists.  In the end, I expect to see the
commercial interests point to this fact as yet another reason
why they should be entitled to current Amateur Spectrum reallocation.

DON'T FORGET WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 220 MHz BAND!!!!  Amateurs who
wanted to preserve their control link frequencies between 220-222
did not have the info. published in the ARRL Repeater Directory.
UPS got in there and said "See, the band is empty below 222MHz!"

73 de N6NYX


... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date: Wed,  7 Sep 1994 16:26:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!mhv.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!digcir![e-mail]
Subject: A Repeater on 147.555
To: [e-mail]

 -=> Quoting Don Anderson to All <=-

 >|> >But does every Ham have a right to have his own repeater?
 >|> A very good question and the answer certainly must be *NO*.

Guess what.  You are incorrect UNLESS the repeater in question has
an input or output between 144-144.5MHz and 145.5-146.0MHz, then
it's an FCC rules violation.  Oh dear GOD how I WISH there were
a rule (not just a guideline) that stated you must have a particular
USAGE for a repeater that serves a particular USER BASE that was
cuurently NOT SERVED.  Reciprocity of coverage areas here in the
Southern California area is at least tenfold.  I can bring up at
least 10 repeaters from anywhere in So.Cal. with an HT with VERY
FEW exceptions.  Do we really need this?!?

 >but I have to ask why does "the answer certainly must be *NO*"?  I
 >agree that most repeater QSOs could be used on simplex at lower power,
 >and thus, technically, they are breaking the law.

They are breaking "Good Amateur Practice".  Which FCC Rule MANDATES
using simplex?

 >I would say they probably do have the right, but that exercising it is
 >not in the best interests of the ham community at large.  I see nothing
 >in Part 97 to say every ham *can't* have his (or her) own repeater.
 >Please enlighten me and the group on your thinking.

This was the TASMA opinion through 1992 and 1993.  As a matter of fact,
our Constitution and By-Laws MANDATES that we shall coordinate
repeaters whenever possible.  This usually was based on whether or
not a significant amount of legitimate complaints was received
from fellow hams.  To date, I have yet to see an engineering definition
for unacceptable interference.  All of our coordination decisions
were based on SUBJECTIVE interference criteria (i.e. politics!)
because NOBODY could agree on an acceptable interference level.

 DA> To anyone who really wants there own 2M rptr bad enough and doesn't
 DA> want coordination or interference hassles, consider moving to Eastern
 DA> Montana or North Dakota.  Unless things have changed dramatically in
 DA> the ten years since I last drove thru there (the population sure
 DA> hasn't), you are lucky if you can hit one or two rptrs from anywhere in
 DA> the state(s). It was so bad that I was calling on .52 and .94 simplex
 DA> working one guy here and there and they would say,"Look for Joe W7XYZ
 DA> when you get to (name of next little burg 50 miles down the road) and
 DA> say hello for me!" Don N7EF    <[e-mail]>


The same situation occurs in Wendover, NV.  During the Bonneville speed
trials, the nearest repeater you can work is in Salt Lake City, UT, some
100 miles away.  You need 50 watts to do it!  BTW, frequency coordination
is not really necessary in super-rural areas like this.  The Ham-to-
spectrum ratio is sooooo looooowwww!!

... Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:33:05 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!eskimo![e-mail]
Subject: A Repeater on 147.555?!?
To: [e-mail]

<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Earle)
writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(J.D. Cronin) writes:
>>2-meters is crowded, but what about other bands?  It's "use it or lose
>>it", and most of them aren't being used.  The big question is how to
>>get hams to migrate to other VHF/UHF bands.  I no longer bring along
>>the dual-band HT due to the lack of activity on 440.  220 is pretty
>>well dead, and how many people have even seen a radio for 1.2 gig or a
>>higher band?
>
>>73...Jim N2VNO
>
>This is going to start a flame war - I just know it, but I think it's a
valid
>point, and one which needs making:
>
>If the "No CW test requirments for HF" crowd get their way, and all
these people
>suddenly have access to the HF bands as well, how crowded will they be?
[ -- stuff deleted -- ]
>
>Please don't mail me direct - if there is to be any debate I would
prefer it to
>be on here ...
>
> 73, Scott
>--
Well, it shouldn't have any impact on the CW subbands if the no-code
HFer's mind their manners!
Don  N7EF    <[e-mail]>



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

Date: 7 Sep 1994 15:45:17 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!eff!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!newsflash.mitre.org!m14494-mac.mitre.org![e-mail]
Subject: Hiram Maxim's Flying Machine
To: [e-mail]

Kok Chen wrote:

>...Mr. Hiram Maxim had built a steam powered plane, which
> unfortunately, tore itself apart upon leaving ground on July 1894.

Close, but not quite accurate. Maxim did indeed build a steam-powered
aircraft, which he was testing on a track, the function of which was to
hold the aircraft to the ground; he was making a ground test, and was not
yet trying to fly. The aircraft generated so much lift that it broke the
track and flipped over. Maxim's flight control system, however, was so
primative that had he tried to fly it, the machine would almost certainly
have crashed. One can make the argument that Maxim's was the first
heavier-than-air machine to lift off the earth's surface under its own
power, but it was an accident, and it did so in the process of destroying
itself. The real genius of the Wright Bros. machine lay in its control
system, which was decades ahead of everyone else working on the problem at
the time, most notably Langley.

Incidentally, I believe it was Hiram Stevens Maxim, inventor of the machine
gun, who made the steam plane, not his son Hiram Percy Maxim, known to
generations of hams as "the old man".
--
[e-mail]

My opinions are my own, not my employer's.

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

Date: Wed,  7 Sep 1994 16:28:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!mhv.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!digcir![e-mail]
Subject: Hooray to the FCC!
To: [e-mail]

Congratulations on becoming a part of the Amateur Community.

73 de N6NYX

... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 15:55:55 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Mods for Kenwood TH-79A
To: [e-mail]

Does anyone have extended TX/RX mods for the TH-79A?  I didn't see any at
ftp.funet.fi and thought someone who's tested the mods might comment
on them.
--
Kurt F. Sauer                               Another day.
Austin, Texas                                                 Another chance
                                                             to feel healthy.
ViaCrypt PGP key available on key servers

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

Date: 7 Sep 1994 16:32:17 GMT
From: thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!longlast.cs.nyu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Need comments on 2 Ham books @ Radio Shack
To: [e-mail]

Re: Radio Shack's "No Code Plus".
|> >: I know that the 2nd has the test pool

I have been using this book exclusively to study for over a
year now, and can pretty much rip through the question pools.

My question is, have the question pools changed at all since
new rules have been passed that change the answers to some of
the questions, such as the "pizza rule"? The cover reads
"Questions and Answers Effective July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1997",
but business use questions are now wrong.

Does the FCC ever rewrite question pools before they expire? I'd
hate to screw up the exam because a question or two have been
changed.

--
Steven Jackson, Assistant to the Chair of Computer Science
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University
251 Mercer Street, NY NY 10012

      Work                 <-- (forwarded)             Home
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Sep 1994 15:25:16 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.cs.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu![e-mail]
Subject: NYS Ham License Plates
To: [e-mail]

In article <34kbti$[e-mail]>, Steve Steinberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I hate to bring up the subject again, but I haven't heard any
>discussion on what NYS is doing.  Is there any news?

I just got a nice letter yesterday from the NYS Custom Plates office.
They apologized for the delays which were due to heavy demand and some
problems with manufacturing the newly designed plates and assured me
that my plates would be shipped out by September 16th.  They had cashed
the check around August 14th.

73 de Alan N2YGK

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

Date: 8 Sep 94 12:33:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NYS Ham License Plates
To: [e-mail]

Date: 7 Sep 1994 08:32:50 -0400
From: psinntp!JH.Org![e-mail]
Subject: NYS Ham License Plates
To: [e-mail]

I hate to bring up the subject again, but I haven't heard any
discussion on what NYS is doing.  Is there any news?

73,
Steve

Steve,

A friend of mine received a letter from the DMV stating that
all the applications for the ham plates will be processed by
the end of September.  My plates have been on order since March,
but the only thing I personally heard when I called the DMV special
plates division was that my plates were being processed and that
was in the beginning of August.

73,

TJ, kv2x
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
                               |
Thomas J. Jennings             | Tel: [phone]
Development Engineer           | Fax: [phone]
                               |
ABB Process Automation         |
Post Office Box 22685          |
Rochester, New York 14692-2685 |
                               |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Sep 1994 01:05:55 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!prairienet.org![e-mail]
Subject: PACTOR changeover timing
To: [e-mail]

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Peter A. Klein) says:

>Does anyone know the minimum changeover time requirement for PACTOR and
>G-TOR?

I think that the Icom 745 should work OK.  Short path PACTOR has a cycle
time of 1250 ms.  The ISS station sends a 960 ms packet and the IRS
responds with a 120 ms control signal.  The German PTC default for CS
delay (the time between the end of the ISS transmission and the start of
the CS signal) is 30 ms.  If you add propagation delay, you have a delay
that would seem to work with your 745.  In PACTOR Long Path mode, the
cycle time stretches to 1500 ms...

There might be other reasons PACTOR fails.  Are you using any receiver
filters that might be clipping the signal?  If you are using AFSK, is the
transmit audio level too high?

73, Drew

--
*-----------------------------*-------------------------------------*
|    Andrew B. White  K9CW    |    internet: [e-mail]    |
|    ABW Associates, Ltd.     |   phone/fax: [phone]           |
*-----------------------------*-------------------------------------*

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:55:20 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!wotan.compaq.com!twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: RFI Free PC Computer Cabinet?
To: [e-mail]

>
>BTW, regarding the aluminum foil, my computerguy #2 sez there
>should be no problem with a 386 and covering miscellaneous holes
>in the computer cabinent; however, he cautions covering too much
>with the 486 because of the chip's greater cooling and air flow
>requirements. GL!
>
Caution!  If a computer manufacturer bothered to machine holes and
create extra slots for venting he must have a reason.  Blocking the
air flow on a computer could raise component temperatures above
the manufacturers ratings causing a premature failure.

Those holes and slots cost money, if we didn't need them we wouldn't
put them in.

Earl Morse
KZ8E
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:45:21 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan.compaq.com!twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com![e-mail]
Subject: RFI Free PC Computer Cabinet?
To: [e-mail]

>Over th e past several years, I have tried several different PC
>compatible computers in the shack in an attempt to use with my HF
>Station.  It seems no matter with PC I have tried, and having tried
>toroid chookes, ac filters, etc.  my PC (now a 486 /66) still QRM's the
>heck out of the ham hams with birdies and other annoying noise.
>
>I know my PC is not a CLass B machine, just a clone.  But over the years,
>I have had several clones, real IBM's, Compaqs, and AST's all with
>basically the same result.
>
>Does anyone out there know of a manufacturer of a PC tower or desktop
>cabinet that has excellent RFI suppression and shielding?  If so,
>would be very interested in finding this out.
>
>Short of spending magabuck for a new class b machine, is there any other
>solution? My pca nd my hf station are totally useless together.  What
>does all you guys do?
>

The FCC Class B limits were  basically designed to keep the emissions
from a digital device from interfering with broadcast services (ie AM, FM, and
TV).  Just because a computer is class B compliant doesn't mean that
it will cause zero interference.  On the contrary any digital device
will make interference, if you get lucky you may be able to minimize the
interference with an off the shelf product.  A completely bullet proof unit
will take extra filtering and shielding and probably some degradation of
some of the subsystems like video.


Earl Morse
KZ8E
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Sep 1994 22:19:51 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!acme![e-mail]
Subject: VEC Testing Help
To: [e-mail]

Larry Boyd ([e-mail]) wrote:

:     When testing the different classes how many VE's and VEC's are
: needed for the different classes?

    At least 3 VEs are needed at any testing session.  The VEC is the
organization that certifies the VEs; there are (I think) about 8-10 VECs
in the USA--the ARRL is one, and there are several others as well.

    At the last session I was at, there were about 10 VEs--lets you
have three in the room for the CW tests, and three in the room for the
written tests, as well as leaving them free for potty breaks, etc.

 --
 Dan Brown
 [e-mail]
 Don't Tread on Me

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

Date: 8 Sep 94 14:18:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VEC Testing Help
To: [e-mail]

>    When testing the different classes how many VE's and VEC's are
>needed for the different classes?
>Ex. Novice Class 1 general VEC + what? 2 general VE's??
>Thanks for the help.
>Larry Boyd
>[e-mail]

only 1 VEC -- and that's the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator...they won't
directly administer the exam.

You need 3 volunteer examiners that have scheduled an exam
session with the VEC to administer the test.

General and Advanced VEs can administer elements 1A, 2, 3A exams only.

Extra VEs can administer all exam elements.

A team liasion is the point of contact between the exam team and the VEC.
(that may be what you were thinking of with the "1 general VEC"..above).

There's something like a dozen VECs around the country -- see the headings on
Bart Jahnke's recently posted exam schedule for names and addresses. The big
ones are ARRL and W5YI (not sure who #3 is now).

73, bill wb9ivr
(december marks the 10th anniversary of monthly examinations here in
melbourne, florida...)

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:17:14 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!news![e-mail]
Subject: Zia Information
To: [e-mail]

Lou NIgro (KW7H) wrote "No ZIA connection into San Diego, Yuma is
the last repeater on Interstate 8."  Almost, but not quite true.  ECRA
(East County Repeater Association) in San Diego DOES have a remote
base on 449.175 mHz (- with a 88.5 Hz pl) on Monument Peak that is
advertised to have a 2 meter link into ZIA.  Activating the 2 meter
link into ZIA is done by a series of touchtone commands that only
dues paying members have.  I'm not a member of ECRA, so I don't
know how receptive they would be to activating the link for non-
members.

John  WA6ORO
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  7 Sep 1994 16:42:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!mhv.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!digcir![e-mail]
Subject: Zia Information
To: [e-mail]

 -=> Quoting Paul Christofanelli to All <=-

 PC> Thomas P. Denny ([e-mail]) wrote:
 PC> : I need some info on the Zia Connection.
 PC> : I'm familiar with what the ARRL Repeater Directory says about it,
 PC> : but rumor has it that there is a connection to it in Colorado
 PC> : Springs (what freq?), and I'm wondering if it extends into San
 PC> : Diego, CA (again, what freq, if any?).


The East County Repeater Association in San Diego has a remote base
on their 449.175 machine that can tie into ZIA.  Their 147.24(+)
machine is continuously linked to a machine in Wickenburg, AZ but
it is not part of the ZIA Connection.

There is no ZIA machine in San Diego proper.  You must use a remote
base.  Try the ECRA BBS at 619-286-8918 (14400,N,8,1)

73 de N6NYX
... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1005
******************************