QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/941067.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 12KB

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 04:30:14 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 #1067
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 27 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1067

Today's Topics:
                           147.555 Repeater
                   Answer to "How far can I talk?"
               PC-based digital communications software

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: 26 Sep 1994 20:37:15 GMT
From: pagesat.net!news.cerf.net!hacgate2.hac.com![e-mail]
Subject: 147.555 Repeater
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (James E. Proctor) writes:
>There was an article in the Dec 15, 1993 WESTLINK REPORT (front cover) that
>tells of a ham who put a repeater on 147.49 MHz, caused interference to a
>simplex net, and received a notice from the FCC that the operation of a
>non-coordinated repeater may not cause interference to other amateur operators.
>The notice said that Section 97.205 states that an uncoordinated repeater does
>not have the same right to use of the band as simplex operators or coordinated
>repeaters. The notice also warned that failure to comply could result in loss
>of license.

Where in section 97.205 (or anywhere else) does it say anything about the status of
uncoordinated repeaters vs. simplex operators?  I thought the only reference to
uncoordinated repeaters was with respect to coordinated ones. The uncoordinated
repeater must not cause interference to the simplex operators only in as much as
any station must not cause interference with another.  Note that this means the
simplex operators also must not cause interference to the uncoordinated repeater!
I would guess that there are some details left out of the scenario mentioned above.

-Brian
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Sep 1994 20:21:41 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Answer to "How far can I talk?"
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael White) writes:
|>>but here's a useful little rule of thumb: The distance to the "radio
|>>horizon" is the square root of twice the antenna height in feet. This
|>>represents the maximum line of sight distance over flat ground; terrain,
|>
|>   Lessee; my duckie is 5 feet above ground, so the "radio horizon" is
|>3.16 feet away?  I was sure I was getting at least 30 feet to that other
|>radio!  :-)
|>
|>   Yes, I know, "the distance to the 'radio horizon' IN MILES is the
|>square root of twice the antenna height in feet".  You big silly.

Actually it's closer to 50% greater than that for the radio horizon.  The
formula is something like: d=1.4*sqrt(h) where d is in miles and h is
height in feet.  Also note that the distance you can communicate is the
sum of the distance of each stations horizon.  So for two people with their
radios 5 feet off the ground, ought to be able to communicate to a distance
of about 9 miles plus or minus terrain variations and obstacles.

Also note that this distance is for line-of-sight communication, which
is appropriate for your 2 meter HT, but not for a 2 meter weak signal
station that is using 10-15 dB gain antennas and 100-200 watts of power.
A station like that with an antenna at 50' should be able to communicate
with a similarly equipment station to a distance of 150 miles or so
reliably.  This is as opposed to the 28 miles predicted above.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 09:33:33 PDT
From: news.sprintlink.net!nwnexus!seanews![e-mail]
Subject: PC-based digital communications software
To: [e-mail]

Does anyone have experience with both BMK-MULTY and HAMCOMM (the one by
W.F. Schroeder, DL5YEC)?

I already have an HF modem with good filters (an AEA CP-1).  So rather
than getting an expensive TNC, I'm interested in a PC-based digital
communications package for HF that includes CW, RTTY, AMTOR, and PACTOR.

Could anyone post or email me a features and price comparison?

Thanks and 73,
--Peter Klein, KD7MW

[e-mail]

Note: I'm interested in programs that actually do the decoding in the PC,
NOT terminal programs for a TNC.

--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail []
[e-mail] [] [phone] (v.FC 28.8k) []

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

Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:43:56 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!kgkmac.repoc.nwu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <35v377$[e-mail]>, <35v21v$[e-mail]>, <35vj0f$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Restrictive Covenants: I can't have *any* antenna?

I came across this in "rec.video.satellite" today and thought I'd pass it
on here.  It is presented in Edited form, eliminating the names of the
original posters, since I didn't ask them for permission to cross post
this.  Perhaps this information will be useful here for ham antennas. I do
not any experience with this group or other information than what is
presented here. I would suggest checking the  FAQ for rec.video.satellite
for additional information.
 - Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------


 Date:    04-11-94 21:06 (Public)
 Subject: Kudos to FAC for ASTA
I want to express my thanks to the FAC keeper for pointing me
to ASTA.
I am contemplating acquiring a satellite receiver and my deed
restrictions prohibit such animals.  A quick look at the FAC and
I was turned on to ASTA.  One call to them got me a warm fuzzy
feeling that I could indeed battle my civic association on this.
ASTA has two packages One for Zoning and another for Restrictived
Covenances.  I just recevied the later which cost $34.95 and
found it very enlightening.  The "Restricted Neighborhoods and
Unrestricted Skies" document by Lauritz Helland was most informative
and written in a non-inflamatory way.  I plan to use this to
back up my position that I can install the dish, regardless of the
No outside antenna position of our deed restrictions.
I found that the ASTA people genuinely helpful and do not begrudge
the cost of the legal packet one bit.  They were extremely please
to hear that I found out about them from the internet, they knew
about it but unfortunately are not on it.  Since ASTA is a non-
profit organization, they are funded entirely on sales of these
two legal packets.  I encourage anyone who is considering installing
a satellite receiver to support ASTA.  Without them, I would have
felt very alone and intimidated by my community's restrictions tha
were made 15 years ago and obviously out of date.
I don't have any affiliation with ASTA, I just felt that they offer
a very valuable service and are unfortunately not well known. (My
satellite dealer who has been in business 12 years didn't know about
them).
Anticipating a world of new viewing
 >>> Ahhh, this is what I need, a source of information.  Just what is the
 >>> 'ASTA'?  I'd sure like to find an organization which knows something about
 >>> fighting for the right to place a dish on your own property.
AMERICAN SATELLITE TELEVISION ALLIANCE (ASTA), headquartered in
Valhalla, NY, is a non-Profit organization formed to combat zoning and
covenant restrictions that impede the rights of dish owners to purchase
and use satellite TV systems. For more information as ASTA,
call [phone].

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

-------------------------------------------------------- _--
Kenneth Kalan     PP ASEL                    ===_      /  |
Northwestern University               | ___/[__ ] \___/__ |
Prosthetics Research Laboratory       |\__ _|___|_____===/
Rehabilitation Engineering Program      |    \/
[e-mail]       N9YIR                 o     O
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 19:05:20 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <365sjn$[e-mail]>π
Subject : Re: Why is aviation COM VHF *amplitude* modulated?

[e-mail] (Alan Larson) writes:

>  Jeff, it is quite difficult replying by mail to your articles because
>your news software is giving an invalid address on the From: header.
>Please contact your system administrator -- you are *NOT* at tmc.edu,
>according to the administrator of tmc.edu.  Is it asking too much that
>you follow the standards...  ("good usenet operating practices...")

Wow, Alan - no need to be so mean. The folks here know about the
invalid default address and are working on it. I've posted my
real address to the net several times in the past.

This is a university with 48,000 students - the computer center
has it's hands full with other problems besides the invalid
address. They set the standards, not me!

73 from Hawaii,
Jeff NH6IL
[e-mail] (pay attention, Alan!)

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:46:12 GMT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>org
Subject : Re: 1.2GHz on an HT -- how far?

[e-mail] wrote:
: >
: >The Microwave oven principle is *wrong.*  You can cook hot dogs just
:                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: No, The principle of absorption peaks attenuating signals is proven fact,
: and the energy is usually released via kinetic excitation of the atoms or
: molecules involved.

: >fine with a 100 watts from a 2 meter transmitter.  Check the 1972
:                                                               ^^^^

True, there are absorption peaks.  But, since they aren't used by
microwave ovens, I stand by my assertion that the theory doesn't
apply.  Or, does anyone know of a 24 GHz microwave oven that one can
buy that does an acceptable job of cooking food?

: >where people won't complain about interference.  Secondly, it has to cook
:                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >food all the way through (no raw meat in the middle).  Finally, it has
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: That's why the H2O absorption theory works well - almost everything we
: cook contains lots of water.

No it doesn't, the lowest absorbtion frequency peak is too high to
effectively penetrate thick pieces of food.

Why are absorption peaks needed?  True, you don't have to work as hard
to transfer energy to the food.  But, look at other mechanisms used for
cooking food, such as stoves and fireplaces.  They seem to do an acceptable
job--I'd rather eat a hamburger cooked by a theoretically inefficient
fireplace than eat a raw one!


--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1067
******************************