QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/941135.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27KB

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 18:58:26 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1135
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed, 19 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1135

Today's Topics:
         ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST? (4 msgs)
                         Callsigns. (3 msgs)
                        Code debated 10/23/94
                  Deignan's List of Dead Hams, etc.
                        Kindness and ham radio
              low power fm short range xmitter (2 msgs)
                        Proximity Detector CKT
    re(2): Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta: phonetic alphabets (revised)
                       TS-120-s problems, help!
                Which is harder ADVANCED OR EXTRA TEST
               Which is harder ADVANCED OR EXTRA TEST?

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: 19 Oct 1994 15:50:09 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?

In article <3839nf$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Galen Watts) writes:

|> Well, considering that most CW ops also don't use a key, maybe QST should
|> change the name to:
|>
|>                 DEAD BUGS

Good one, Galen. You had me laughing so hard my sides hurt. I'm glad a few
people out there can still appreciate sarcastic humour when they see it.

MD

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 16:44:15 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mark D. Conner)
Subject: ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?

In article <38158q$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>With the popularity of the no-code license, its only a matter
>of time, if it hasn't occurred already, that a no-code tech will
>die and have his/her call listed in the QST "Silent Keys" column.
>
>Clearly, we need some "Truth in Advertising". These hams can't be
>silent "keys", because most of them were probably too lazy to touch
>a key (or even know what a key is, for that matter...).

Oh, good, at long last, a fresh line of argument - "if you don't beep,
you ain't squat".  I really love it when someone comes up with
something new in this newsgroup.

The next time I help with traffic control at a local event I'll bring
a bench and straight key with me.  If God wanted me to beep all the
time, He'd have given me a modem and bug in place of a voice box.

Guess I'll have to invest in the disk space for those killfile
directories after all.  Congratulations, Mr Deignan, those stink bombs
you throw actually have an effect.

For the record, code users definitely have a place in Amateur Radio,
but that place is not to tell the non-code-users they're lazy or "not
real hams".

--
Mark D. Conner  - N9XTN                 Opinions expressed here are
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences    not necessarily those of the
Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette IN 47907    Government, DoD, Purdue, or
[e-mail]        the author.

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 17:00:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject: ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?

Please take your anti-no-code diatribe and bigotry to a newsgroup that
is more appropriate and leave r.r.a.m. alone.

Thanks,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 13:17:03 -500 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul D. Walker II)
Subject: ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?

In article <38158q$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P.
Deignan) writes:
>With the popularity of the no-code license, its only a matter
>of time, if it hasn't occurred already, that a no-code tech will
>die and have his/her call listed in the QST "Silent Keys" column.
>
>Clearly, we need some "Truth in Advertising". These hams can't be
>silent "keys", because most of them were probably too lazy to touch
>a key (or even know what a key is, for that matter...).

Didn't anybody else see this for what it was --- HUMOR.  Good grief, lifes too
short to get uptight over everything someone says.  Life's also too short to
wait for the rules to change.  This ex-no-code Tech now holds an extra class
ticket.

Have a nice day! :-)
Paul Walker
N9WHG
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 15:26:06 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ryan C. Welty)
Subject: Callsigns.

Brad Killebrew N5LJV ([e-mail]) wrote:
: The following comments DO NOT reflect the ham population in general,
: rather just one individual that have the unfortunate luck of knowing.

: This particular fellow is a no-code Tech who is still an avid CB'er.
: His "CB" rig is a modified Uniden 10 meter radio with a 500 watt amp.
: While this person loves to operate VHF and UHF repeaters, he also enjoys,
: rather frequently, moving his "CB" rig into the ham band and shooting DX.
Turn this person in to an Official Observer, or to the FCC. Other nifty
ideas incude a pin thru his coax.

It would be simple if everyone's call reflected their license class, and
thats how it once was. But think about it for a minute. I know lots of
old timers who are generals or advanced but have 2x3 calls. And extras
with 1x3s. I'm working on my extra code now, but I don't want a ad4??
call when I get it. I want to keep mine until they do the requested call
sign thing.

If you have a doubt about someone's license class, just telnet buffalo
and look them up. I'm sure it will diferentiate between coded and
code-free techs within a year or two.

my $0.02
ryan  kr4oq

--
============================================================================
| Ryan Welty               H: 821.7458 W: 844.4059 | It is a wonderful,    |
| Chief Engineer      kr4oq@bbs.k4ry.#cenal.al.usa | powerful place...     |
| WEGL FM91.1              [e-mail] | where there is faith. |
============================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 15:57:28 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul H. Bock)
Subject: Callsigns.

[e-mail] (Zack Lau (KH6CP)) writes:

>Brad Killebrew N5LJV ([e-mail]) wrote:

>: Now that the FCC has their new computer online, the FCC should program
>: their computer to issue DIFFERENT class callsigns to EACH license class.
>: I believe that if this particular ham that I mentioned above would have
>: a class-distinctive callsign, other hams would know that he is not
>: authorized on those frequencies.  This problem is also compounded because
>: in most call districts, Technicians and Generals are assigned Novice calls
>: because 1x3 N-calls are gone.

     This would mean *requiring* people to accept a new callign each time they
upgrade, which is a *disincentive* to upgrading.  Having had the same callsign
since 1957, I'm particularly fond of it, and as I approach retirement I
may find the time to upgrade to Extra.  However, I'm not willing to
relinquish a long-held callsign to do that without some serious thought
beforehand; i.e., how badly do I really want that bottom 25 kHz just to
work CW DX?

>While there are exceptions, how many exotic DX stations keep up with
>the way the FCC allocates callsigns in the USA.  Or to put it another
>way, how many USA amateurs can detail how Austrialia or the UK allocates
>their callsigns?

     Excellent point.  And why should they?  That's a regulatory issue within
each country.  If the OOs were given on-line access to the FCC database
(via Telnet or some such) then they could quickly ID an "out-of-bander."
But *no* system will accomplish foolproof IDing of privileges unless
prefixes are made *very* distinctive and *everyone* gets a new license
and callsign; i.e., start over again from scratch.  All Novices start with
N or N(*), all no-code techs with AA thru AK, code techs with AL thru AZ,
all generals with K or K(*), all advanced with W(*), all extras with W.
Every time you upgrade, you get a new call.  Big Brother now has total
control.....


(|_|)  Paul H. Bock, Jr. K4MSG     Internet: [e-mail]
 | |)  Principal Systems Engineer  Telephone: [phone] x2062

   "You can have my bug when you can pry my cold, dead fingers from
    around it....." - anonymous radiotelegraph operator

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 16:27:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mark D. Conner)
Subject: Callsigns.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Killebrew N5LJV) writes:
>Here's the topic:
>
>Now that the FCC has their new computer online, the FCC should program
>their computer to issue DIFFERENT class callsigns to EACH license class.
>I believe that if this particular ham that I mentioned above would have
>a class-distinctive callsign, other hams would know that he is not
>authorized on those frequencies.  This problem is also compounded because
>in most call districts, Technicians and Generals are assigned Novice calls
>because 1x3 N-calls are gone.

Would this be retroactive to all current license holders?  I don't
think a mass reissue of calls with be popular with anyone, especially
the FCC.

Second, will you be *required* to change your call when you upgrade?
This probably won't go over well, either.  If a person stays a while
in one class and has a well-known call, he won't want to lose it.

If license class is known from the callsign alone, poor operators will
likely "appropriate" a call from the desired class and use it instead.
There are enough callbooks and callsign servers around that if there
is a question on whether someone is operating in the appropriate band,
he/she can be checked out rather quickly.

--
Mark D. Conner  - N9XTN                 Opinions expressed here are
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences    not necessarily those of the
Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette IN 47907    Government, DoD, Purdue, or
[e-mail]        the author.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 14:54:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Len Winkler)
Subject: Code debated 10/23/94

10/23/94 is this Sunday and that means Paul Flaherty & Dana Meyers; 2 of the famous
code debaters will appear on the nationally syndicated talk show, Ham Radio & More.
The 2 have been going at it for almost 10 years now. Will it be settled this Sunday?
It will be a great chance to HEAR what they have to say, call in and ask them
questions, praise them, flame them, or whatever. That's 10/23/94, at 6:00pm EST on
the Ham Radio & More show, on the Talk America Network. Also via satellite on
Spacenet 3, Transponder 9, 6.8 audio. Call 602-241-1510 for more info.

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 19:27:59 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Deignan's List of Dead Hams, etc.

In article <3837hc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Richard Rosenfeld) wrote:

> Besides being in somewhat poor taste and insulting to no-code
> tech licensees (which we've come to expect from Mr. D.), Mike
> may actually have a point about renaming the "Silent Keys"
> column.  Some other ideas:
>
> Eternal QRT
> Permanent QSB
> Gone to that great DX contest in the sky
>
> Hmmm, given these choices, I think "Silent Keys" is a pretty
> good name for the column.

Deignan isn't the only one who feels that way. I live not a mile from him
and hear the same psychobabble on 2m and 70cm. It's a way of life for most
Rhode Islanders which is most unfortunate.

It's amusing when some tropo occurs and all the no-clue's clamor over each
other for that "rare DX" contact.

I don't mind a no-code who doesn't complain/whine/bitch about HF access
and who doesn't act like a complete fool when tropo occurs. A 2m repeater
isn't the place for it.

--
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR - Brown University ADIR Computing Services
== Box 1908, Prov, RI 02912 Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]
== Organized Crime is alive and well. It's called Auto Insurance.

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 18:50:29 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Subject: Kindness and ham radio

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>A special LID of the year award to Monique, F1***   Monique, if you're
>>reading this, did it occur to you to actually listen on the input for
>>all those rare DX stations that you thought you were working?
>
>Excuse me, but operating simplex on a repeater input is very bad
>form indeed. Our FCC would consider it malicous interference if
>it were done deliberately.

Well, Gary, I frequently *listen* on input, as Mike mentions, to see
if I am in simplex range of a station I'm talking to via a repeater.
If we are in simplex range, then I'll, using the repeater, agree on a
frequency and move.  Nothing malicious about that.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are      *
 * [phone]               | mine and do not necessarily   *
 * [e-mail]      | reflect those of my employer  *
 * "Antenna waves be burnin' up my radio" -- ZZ Top                *

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 17:31:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: low power fm short range xmitter

In article <38241q$[e-mail]>,
Jim Blake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi.
>
>I am interested in information on short range fm transmitters.

To my knowledge your desire is downright illegal.
try rec.radio.criminal!

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 18:37:40 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Galen Watts)
Subject: low power fm short range xmitter

In article <383l4r$[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>In article <38241q$[e-mail]>,
>Jim Blake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>I am interested in information on short range fm transmitters.
>
>To my knowledge your desire is downright illegal.

Only if he violates FCC Part 15 regs.

>try rec.radio.criminal!

Nahhh, try alt.radio.pirate
Folks on a.r.pirate are pushing the legal issue of freedom of speech and
how microbroadcasting is the 20th century equiv. of Ben Franklin's
'Poor Richards Almanac'.  Interesting discussion.

Galen, KF0YJ

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

Date: 19 Oct 94 20:41:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Proximity Detector CKT

Hi gang,

Although I'm familiar with the older forms of proximity detection, I'm curious
about by the system used currently on cars that provide an audible warning.
Are there any circuit diagrams available or can someone provide me with a
technical explanation of the detector circuit?

Will certainly appreciate any help or clues that you are able to provide.

Thanks and 73

Hugh Wells,  W6WTU
Hugh_E._Wells.El_Segundo@xerox:com

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 19:34:49 GMT
From: [e-mail] (William J Turner)
Subject: re(2): Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta: phonetic alphabets (revised)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James W. Youngberg) writes:
>Actually, I don't recall the use of LLAMA.  No word started with the same
>sound that its first letter would indicate.  Truly inspirational.

If you pronounce LLAMA like the Spanish, it doesn't have an L sound...

Just a thought...

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 19:40:32 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Fred McKenzie)
Subject: TS-120-s problems, help!

In article <382khi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pablo
Lewin) wrote:
> I recently purchased a TS-120-S hf xceiver, and it seems to work well on
> 80 and 40 meters, however on 20,15, and 10 meters, it is extremely
> unreliable, iat times the xceiver seems to go into an autoscillation mode
> where the carrier goes bezerk ( out of control!) and there's no
> modulation posibbleches,.

Pablo-

Yours is a common problem with the TS-120S.  Not only are there components
that can cause it, I heard there was a factory bulletin that covers it.

Early reports were that you needed to go to the PCBs and install star lock
washers under all the screws holding them down, to provide good ground
connections.  I discussed this with a technician at Amateur Electronic
Supply, who said that it shouldn't oscillate, even with the screws
removed!  He successfully repaired mine by replacing one failed
component.  As I recall, he claimed mine already had the Kenwood mod
incorporated.

First thing you can try, is to tighten all the PCB mounting screws, and
see if that helps.  Then, contact Kenwood about the service bulletins for
that problem.  You may have to send it back to Kenwood.

If it wasn't for this problem, the TS-120S is a fine little radio.  Its
only other drawback is a slight drift in the VFO.  In general, you can
depend on the digital display once you've calibrated it.  But, be aware
that the VFO drifts 100 Hz before the next digit changes on the display.
It should be calibrated so that the digit just changes from 14.999.9 to
.000.0, when you get the same tone on upper and lower sideband, on 15 MHz
WWV. (Does that make sense?)  In case you didn't notice, there is a rubber
plug on the left side of the radio, that covers the calibration adjustment
hole.

73, Fred, K4DII

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 19:08:22 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Subject: Which is harder ADVANCED OR EXTRA TEST

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (James J Martin) writes:
>Jeff Hall ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:   Whats your opinon?  Is the written Advanced class or Extra class exam
>: harder?  I am just asking about the written test not the code..thanks..Jeff
>
>Although I took the Advanced test at an FCC proctored session and the
>Extra at a couple of ARRL sessions I'd say that the Advanced exam was
>by far the more difficult of the two.
>
>I took the Advanced exam, passed the second time, back in 1983.  Didn't
>do the Extra until 1990.

I'm like Jim; I passed Element 4(A) (Advanced written) in 1980, at the
San Francisco FCC office.  I passed 4(B) (Extra written) at a VE session
in Lancaster in 1990.  4(B) was, for me, really easy.  I just had to bone
up on some arcane rules/regs.  I have trouble remembering 4(A); I was
16 then, and I recall it was challenging.  However,  I haven't looked at
the current question pools yet.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are      *
 * [phone]               | mine and do not necessarily   *
 * [e-mail]      | reflect those of my employer  *
 * "Antenna waves be burnin' up my radio" -- ZZ Top                *

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 19:05:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Fred McKenzie)
Subject: Which is harder ADVANCED OR EXTRA TEST?

In article <37uv1p$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff
Hall) wrote:
>   Whats your opinon?  Is the written Advanced class or Extra class exam
> harder?  I am just asking about the written test not the code.

Jeff-

"Back in the good old days" - I took both tests in front of the FCC in one
session.  It was around 1973, and I was only about 3 years out of College
(EE).

I found the Advanced material more superficial.  I felt memorization would
have been adequate to pass the test.  On the other hand, It was a good
thing I had been studying hard.  The Extra test was quite rough, requiring
a lot of thought.  Lets see - if the Class C amplifier's base voltage is
negative, is it an NPN or a PNP transistor?

How is it today?  The best way to find out, is to just go ahead and give
it a shot!  Next best, is to find some of the tutorial computer programs.
There are some that give you a simulated test, based on the official
question pool.  I've seen them for both Mac and MS-DOS, at various HAM ftp
sites.  Some of them are based on an older question pool, but they should
still give you an idea of the test difficulty.  The question pools can
also be found at the same ftp sites.

73, Fred, K4DII

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

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 11:22:01 -500 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul D. Walker II)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <382v36$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Give me your Definition of Ham Radio!!!

In article <382v36$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Barnes) writes:

>Wow, things must be a lot different in your part of the country.  Here
>in southern Indiana/northern Kentucky newcomers are welcomed with open
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kevin,

Isn't southern Indiana ACTUALLY northern Kentucky? ;^)

73 de N9WHG
Paul Walker
[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 20:09:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Atkinson)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Earth Ground (was: ARRL And Gay Hams Settle Complaint)


Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Now, Dave said that he hoped hams would be more tolerant than the
>rest of society concerning the activites of gays. But why should
>society have to change their innate  feelings to suit a mere 2% who
>choose to participate in these nauseating acts? Maybe that 2% should
>be more tolerant of our feelings.

EXCUSE me.  There's a difference between "changing your innate feelings"
and not beating up people.

Let me phrase that slightly differently.  You have the right to be
disgusted by whatever you want to be disgusted by.  That does *not* mean
that anybody, anywhere, should be discriminated against, beaten, hounded,
harrassed or killed because of what they do behind closed doors with other
consenting adults.

Your feelings and your words reflect poorly on yourself and on the Amateur
Radio Service.  If you want to be bigoted, I won't try to stop you.  But,
for everybody's sake, keep your ignorance and hatred to yourself.  I'd hate
to think that I'd lumped myself in with you when I took and passed my test.

By the way, while I don't have definitive numbers, I hear that about 10% of
the US population is not-heterosexual.


Mike
--
Michael A. Atkinson             Office of the Dean
[e-mail]              College of Arts and Sciences
                                Northwestern University

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

Date: 19 Oct 1994 15:48:05 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Richard M. Krum, KE4GNK)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sound Operated Phones

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Thompson) says:
>
>
>
>>And it might interest you to know that sound powered phones as they are
>>referred to in the navy and coast guard are alive and well and used every day
>>for intership communication.
>       ^^^^
>would that be intraship?
>I think they use radio intership :-)
>

Well, sorta.  They are usually used for interior communications.  The sound-
powered phones are also used between ships that are doing underway resupply
or refueling.  There is a "messenger line" with distance markers and a phone wire
strung between the ships before anything else is connected.  The ends or the wire
are connected to the sound-powered telephone circuit to the "bridge talker" on
both ships.  Apparantly the Navy trusts the sound-powered stuff to work even if
radios do fail.  A "Breakaway" order from either "bridge talker" usually gets over
faster than the radio chatter, and if the tactical situation requires radio silence----.

Was out there one dark and stormy night, when a destroyer was trying to refuel from
our aircraft carrier.  His props and rudder came out of the water on a particularly
bad wave--instant outta control.  The word to break away was given by the bridge
talker on the can just before their captain realized what was about to happen, and
gave the order on radio.  We did it on first word anyway.  Very hairy, trying to unhook
all that junk while dodging another ship
.
The kid got a commendation for thinking fast, and a (light) slap on the wrist for talking
too fast.  We darn near got a DLG stuck through the side of our ship.  I was able
to get a picture of the bow of the can coming outta the water, but I was too busy running
for my life to get the rest of the story on film.  The destroyer rolled toward us, surfed
down the wave, and was UNDER our deck overhang when the wave rolled him out the
other way.  Too close.

--Rich, (No longer in THAT business, thank the ghods)
************************************************************
Usual disclaimers for my casual, non-work-related opinions.  I do not speak for
CSC or NASA, even on a good day.  Your mileage may vary wildly, mine does!
[e-mail]                              10003 Dunbarton Drive
Computer Sciences Corporation                          Huntsville, AL 35803
PO box 240005                                                Ham Radio:  KE4GNK
Huntsville, AL 35824                                       147.240-   or 146.520 simplex

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1135
******************************