QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/941179.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26KB

Date: Wed,  2 Nov 94 04:29:45 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1179
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed,  2 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1179

Today's Topics:
                 "QSO" practice files for supermorse
                       Amateur Band Synthsizer
                      Contacting the MIR. Help!
                  IPS Daily Report - 01 November 94
                Loss of RG214U cable at 1500M (2 msgs)
              Motorola Mitrek Low Band Channel Elements
                 NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins
                       No code Techs and CW...
                  No License to Extra Leap? (2 msgs)
                     PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO
                Warning - PDA Logic problems (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: 1 Nov 1994 20:13:34 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Vinod Narayanan)
Subject: "QSO" practice files for supermorse

Does anyone have sample QSO files they have typed in
for use with SuperMorse? The format for the default is
pretty rigid, so I would like to have a bigger sample
set to practice with. (It does not even have to be QSO's,
it is just that the average random text file has too
many special characters like @ signs, parenthesis etc..so
any files that you have found reasonable for practice would
be most helpful..) Many thanks in advance.

(And yes, I will try not to _think_ while copying the
code, that seems to be my major problem :-)
--vinod , N2ZKE
email: [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 08:28:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Iftkhar Ahmed)
Subject: Amateur Band Synthsizer



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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 19:55:48 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Contacting the MIR. Help!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Roth) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>        Can anyone tell me the minimum requirement to work the MIR.
>>I am using a 7/8 lambda Diamond F-22 vertical mounted on roof. Also
>>using IC-22A on 145.550 MHz with 10watts output. Is this sufficient
>>to work the MIR? The last pass we tried was about 440km nearest.
>
>The antenna is the exact opposite of what you want. The F-22 (and all gain
>verticals) get their gain by concentrating the signal toward the horizon.
>The problem is that MIR is UP, not at the horizon! Don't feel alone, when
>I worked at HRO, this would happen with someone once a day at least.
>
>Try an antenna called a "Crossed Dipole". I used one for years for MIR
>and Sarex. It points up toward the satellites. For a good description, look
>in the Satellite Experimenters Handbook for it.

Unfortunately, this is bad advice. An analysis of all possible passes
for a LEO sat shows that it will spend the majority of the time you
are in it's footprint at an angle of less than 30 degrees above the
horizon. The turnstyle over a groundplane advocated in the SEH has
a *null* at those angles. For a non-steerable antenna, a simple
quarterwave vertical works better (at least 3db better, usually more).
It has a null straight up, but the sat will spend a very short time
directly overhead, and path loss is least during that period. During
the low part of passes (below 20 degrees), a gain vertical can be very
useful. This was reported in the AMSAT Journal a few years ago, but the
SEH hasn't been updated. A better non-steerable antenna is the Lindenblad.
It offers a flattened hemispheric coverage with circular polarization.
CP is a big advantage due to spin modulation on most sats, I highly
recomend building one of these if you aren't going to be using steerable
antennas. (I haven't analyzed the new "eggbeater" style antennas, but I
expect they're better than crossed dipoles too.) The only time the crossed
dipole has the edge is in direct overhead passes. Those are relatively rare,
and the amount of time the sat is directly over any given spot is a very
short time compared to the total time you'll be in it's footprint.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 23:24:48 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Regional Warning Centre)
Subject: IPS Daily Report - 01 November 94

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 01/2330Z NOVEMBER 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 01 NOVEMBER AND FORECAST FOR 02 NOVEMBER - 04 NOVEMBER
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: very low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number :  92/37

GOES satellite data for 31 Oct
       Daily Proton Fluence >1 MeV:   NA
       Daily Proton Fluence >10 MeV:  NA
       Daily Electron Fluence >2 MeV: NA
       X-ray background: NA
Fluence (flux accumulation over 24hrs)/ cm2-ster-day.

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             02 Nov             03 Nov             04 Nov
Activity     Low                Very low           Very low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number for 02 Nov:  90/34

-----------------------------------------------------------
2A. MAGNETIC SUMMARY
Geomagnetic field at Learmonth: unsettled to active

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 31 Oct
    Learmonth       15  3334 3323
    Fredericksburg  16                          32
    Planetary       21                          38

Observed Kp for 31 Oct: 4356 6443
2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
02 Nov    22    Unsettled to active
03 Nov    20    Unsettled to active
04 Nov    15    Unsettled
COMMENT: IPS Geomagnetic Warning 8 was issued on 27 October and is
current for interval 27 October to 4 November.
-----------------------------------------------------------
3A. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION SUMMARY
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
01 Nov      normal         fair           poor
PCA Event : None.

3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
02 Nov      normal         normal-fair    fair-poor
03 Nov      normal         normal-fair    fair-poor
04 Nov      normal         normal         fair

-----------------------------------------------------------
4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
       Observed
DATE   T-index  MUFs at Sydney
01 Nov    10    15-20% depressed until 13UT, near normal thereafter.

Predicted Monthly T-index for November: 15

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
02 Nov    10    Near predicted monthly values/depressed 15 to 20%
03 Nov    10    Near predicted monthly values/depressed 15 to 20%
04 Nov    15    Near predicted monthly values
COMMENT: IPS HF Communications Warning 9 was issued on 27 October and
is current for interval 27 October to 4 November. No data available
00-06UT at Sydney yesterday.Frequencies were near predicted values at
Townsville yesterday.

--
IPS Regional Warning Centre, Sydney       |IPS Radio and Space Services
RWC Duty Forecaster   tel: [phone]  |PO Box 5606
Recorded Message      tel: [phone]  |West Chatswood NSW 2057
email: [e-mail]  fax: [phone]  |AUSTRALIA

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 00:10:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Simon Kwan)
Subject: Loss of RG214U cable at 1500M

Hello all,
  Could anyone please advise the loss (in db per 100ft) of the RG214/U
cable at 1500Mhz? Pse reply by e-mail if possible. Many thanks
Simon VR2YRD  Hong Kong

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 00:15:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Simon Kwan)
Subject: Loss of RG214U cable at 1500M



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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 00:05:18 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Matthew Zilmer (&))
Subject: Motorola Mitrek Low Band Channel Elements

Several hams and I need VHF Low Band channel elements for the Mitrek radio.
Every time anyone takes the Mitrek out of commericial service they keep the
channel elements.  We need them and would be willing to pay for them.  We don't
care about the xtals in the cans, just cut 'em out!  Can anyone help in finding
Mitrek LB elements?  So far our leads are very few, from converting Low UHF to
"good luck sucker!".

But mostly, "good luck sucker!".

So if you know *anyone* with a lead on Low Band cans for the Mitrek, please
let me know here or privately at   [e-mail].  Thanks in advance!

Matthew Zilmer, WA6EGJ
!73!

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

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 23:39:45 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Seems to me that if the FCC found what people are posting on packet
(topics unrelated to ham radio, but no "business" traffic or dirty
words) objectionable, we would have heard about it by now.

Back a few years, someone did get into trouble for posting a message
something like "Call 1-900-xxx-xxxx if you don't like the Gulf War"
because the 900 number operator would make money from it, ie,
"business".  The FCC doesn't seem to mind it when hams transmit
space shuttle audio on 2meters.  That seems to be a kind of one-way
"broadcasting", but it's just information, no urging someone to
"repent", or to buy or do something.  I suspect the "no broadcasting"
rule is to prevent some people from getting on a freq and blabbering
about religion or some such all day long, creating QRM.  Aside from
the backbone of packet nets, the body of packet postings get trans-
mitted only someone asks for it.  Which doesn't trash up the band
like a long winded "broadcasting" ham would.

I don't think the FCC is concerned about packet postings, as long
as there is no "pecunary(sp) interest" or dirty words in them.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 20:29:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: No code Techs and CW...

When I first learned the code, I really hated it.  For the
first few months after I
got my General, I really avoided it.  Now, most of my QSO's are
in code and I've come to enjoy it more than voice.  I feel I
get a greater satisfaction out of a code QSO because of the
effort involved.
[e-mail]
N3OGH
73

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:58:01 -0500
From: Benjamin Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: No License to Extra Leap?

>  Has there ever been anyone who walked into a licensing examination with
> no license at all, passed everything, and walked out amateur extra? If
> not, what's the biggest leap anyone has heard of? I took someone to an
> exam site, and he went from Tech + to Advanced in one leap -- passed the
> 13 wpm, general, advanced, and even the extra exam. Couldn't quite handle
> the 20 wpm, however.

Yes, this happened at the VE session at which I got my Tech+ ticket.
(Oct 1992 in Champaign, IL.)  The UIUC radio club held a class for
training new novices and techs; we were all really nervous about it.
Joel and I were talking before the exam; we weren't sure either of
us would pass the 5wpm.  We were given the (excellent) advice of
sitting through the 20wpm and 13wpm tests, which were given before
the 5wpm, so we could "adjust our ears" to fast code, making the 5wpm
seem less fast.  He passed the 20wpm test, then went out and walked
through all the written exams (he's a EE, I think, so theory wasn't
too much of a problem).  (I missed the 13wpm by one question!)

He went in with no license and walked out an Extra.  Yow!

__
Ben Cox N9RQV/3
[e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Oct 1994 19:41:43 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ignacy Misztal)
Subject: No License to Extra Leap?

This is easier for amateurs active in their own countries and
applying for the U.S licence. Took about 3 hrs in my case.

Ignacy Misztal              Ham radio: NO9E, SP8FWB
E-mail: [e-mail]
University Of Illinois      1207 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
tel. [phone]         Fax: [phone]

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

Date: 31 Oct 1994 14:02:09 -0500
From: [e-mail] (David Tiller)
Subject: PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO

Jeff Racz ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] wrote:

: : IT>A ham is only allowed to use "open speech". But signing a message
: : IT>with the program PGP might be ok.

: : IT>It could reduce the possibility of pirates in amateur radio using
: : IT>others call sign to work in Packet Radio.

: : IT>Any comments are welcome

: You should refer to the section of the rules prohibiting amateurs from using
: codes and cyphers in communicating.  I think that they pretty explicitly
: exclude the use of PGP in amateur radio.

Those sections prohibit using codes and ciphers to obsure the meaning of
a transmission.  A PGP signature is there to authenticate the message, _NOT_
to obscure anything.  There's a difference between encryption, encoding, and
authentication.  Sending compressed data is encoding - anyone who has the
protocol could convert it to plain text.  (Sending a .ZIP or .gz file).
Encryption is where the intent is to hide the contents from everyone except
the recipient - a zip file or PGP signature does neither.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 19:29:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Michael L. Ardai)
Subject: Warning - PDA Logic problems

I use PDA's Logic as a logging program, and until now, have not had any
real complaints with it.  Unfortunately, it's licensing scheme has made
it useless.  While I understand the need to prevent piracy, what they
have done is ridiculous.  Logic is shipped with a special license disk
(non-standard format) that must be inserted during installation (makes
sense) and *every time your machine's configuration changes*.  That includes
whether the mouse driver is loaded, how much EMS/XMS memory is available,
how many serial ports are plugged into the machine, whatever.  Because
of this repeated 'Please insert the license disk' nonsense, I have misplaced
it.  They are refusing to send me a copy (How can they guarantee that I
am not trying to use it in two places at once?) and want me to call them,
long distance, from in front of the system so he can give me a magic number
to re-license it, until the next system change.  Do they really believe that
a PC in a ham shack will not change its configuration frequently?  Did
they really lose that much due to copying and license disk sharing that
they have to screw their customers?

I am now looking for a new logging program for general purpose logging with
an occaisional contest thrown in that runs under DOS (or SUNOS) - no Windows
that will do what Logic used to do.  It should handle the QRZ callbook
and have a log file format that is either available or easily decodable for
making my own QSL cards.  Please send me any suggestions, and I will
summarize to the net.

Thanks very much.  This sure made the second half of CQWW after I had to
re-install DOS really fun.

/mike

--
\|/     Michael L. Ardai     N1IST             Teradyne ATB, Boston MA
-*- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
/|\     [e-mail]          [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Nov 1994 23:08:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject: Warning - PDA Logic problems

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael L. Ardai) writes:
|>
|>I use PDA's Logic as a logging program, and until now, have not had any
|>real complaints with it.  Unfortunately, it's licensing scheme has made
|>it useless.  While I understand the need to prevent piracy, what they
|>have done is ridiculous.  Logic is shipped with a special license disk
|>(non-standard format) that must be inserted during installation (makes
|>sense) and *every time your machine's configuration changes*.  That includes
|>whether the mouse driver is loaded, how much EMS/XMS memory is available,

I was under the impression that Dennis had resolved most of the licensing
problems regarding repeated license disk insertions, etc.  One thing I find
strange though, is that if you needed to insert this disk so often, how did
you misplace it?  I generally find it much more difficult to locate things
I don't use very often versus things I use often.

73,
Todd
N9MWB
(A happy Logic 4 for Windows user)

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 20:33:43 -0500
From: [e-mail]

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <3933a7$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HOW TO LEARN CW???

I had that problem for a LONG time, and sometimes I still do.
It's hard not to read it as you copy, it's really just a matter
of discipline.
[e-mail]
N3OGH
73

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 06:31:27 GMT
From: [e-mail] (gregory brown)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruno Bienenfeld) writes:
: >Ability to copy CW is inverse proportional to the IQ of the operator !!!
: >
: >I KNOW since I can copy 45wpm grups or plain

: Heh, just as we suspected. :-)

: Seriously now, is there a correlation between the ability to use
: proper spelling and grammar and Morse Code copy? I seem to note
: a distinct lack of same from some of the best Code people. Or is
: that just happenstance as well?

: I doubt there is a correlation, inverse or otherwise, in regards to
: intelligence between those who do Morse and those who don't. However,
: I do think there are some inborn differences in the way their brains
: are wired, and that it's not just a matter of effort dividing those
: who can do it fluently from those who cannot. I suspect that manual
: Morse is like an athletic skill. Some people have a large degree of
: natural talent and respond well to only minimal training, others are
: doomed to be duffers no matter how much they practice.

: Gary
: --

While that is undoubtably true, I'd wager that it isn't as difficult
for so many as you might think.  There are surely many factors
involved in the difficulty some people have with learning Morse which
have nothing to do with lacking "natural talent".  Certainly there are
many who, upon having difficulty, presume that they are one of those
"natural talent deficient" people and either give up or develop a
nasty mental block.  And while you may be completely honorable and
well meaning in your opposition to code testing, I'm also fairly
certain that a lot of people joining you on the no-code bandwagon are
amoung the "something for nothing" group.  That isn't an attack upon
you, your motives, or code-free Techs, it's just a "social
observation".  When faced with adversity, a good excuse is always
handy to absolve one of personal responsibility.

Greg

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 03:20:02 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Lee Green MD MPH)

References<roh033.mah48d-171094125453@136.141.220.39> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No code Techs and CW...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gary Coffman) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >
> >I'm hear to tell you this is bull.  If you want to learn code
> >there is only one way.  Practice, practice, practice.  It's
> >been proven that the most learning impared and low I.Q. folks
> >can learn to copy code, and if I can learn how to do it, trust
> >me, you can do it to.
>
> I'd have to agree that if you have a low IQ and are learning impaired,
> you likely *can* learn to copy code. The term "idiot savant" was invented
> to describe this phenomena. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that
> you can do it if your higher facilties are still intact. :-)
>
> Gary

Gary, couldn't agree more!  Not to indulge in false modesty, you can
probably see by my sig line I am not lacking in IQ.  However, I had to
work like a DOG to get 13 wpm!  Practice, practice, practice...  And after
busting my wooden ears for three months to get the code, I visited with my
uncle who was a CW op in the Army in the early '60s.  He can STILL do 30
wpm while CARRYING ON A CONVERSATION WITH ME AT THE SAME TIME!!!  Ack!
And he never bothered to get his ham ticket. -Lee KF8MO

--
Lee Green MD MPH        Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice         and discussion only.  I can't examine you via
University of Michigan  the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
[e-mail]       your  personal physician.  These posts are my
                        personal doings, not a service of nor the
                        responsibility of the University of Michigan.

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

Date: 30 Oct 1994 04:34:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake)

References<[e-mail]> <38jrgg$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions on this and that

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: The 10-minute ID is what I had in mind, Dana. But I still wouldn't test
: the FCC regarding this.  Along these lines:

: Here's a cute anecdote provided by Chuck K5FO: During the late 50's,
: the phrase `Shave and a haircut - two bits'' became popular on
: either the broadcast AM radio or TV (might have been a commercial).
: Hams started using the first part (.  ...  .) in place of CQ on
: HF. Another station hearing the psudo-CQ would answer with the
: ``two bits'' part:  .  .  and the QSO would then take off. This
: got very popular with US hams but the FCC took a dim view of it
: and started handing out lots of pink slips. The dit dit is still
: retained on HF today - you'll hear a CW op end a QSO with that.

: Why would the FCC not like the  .  ...  .  /  . .  exchange in
: place of CQ and the proper response? Only recognized prosigns
: are to be used on CW. Thus, I wouldn't test the FCC regarding
: sending an A or N or T in place of 1 or 6 or 0, respectively,
: with regard to a callsign exchange.

This (the shave & a haircut story) sounds like pure myth to me.
Anyone have any actual references (i.e. QST articles/story) to
back up this claim?  Not meant as a flame, just want to
validate this story.

--
Bill Sohl  K2UNK      ([e-mail])
Budd Lake, New Jersey

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 10:23:02 GMT
From: [e-mail] (nils sjolander)

References<roh033.mah48d-171094125453@136.141.220.39> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: No code Techs and CW...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Green MD MPH) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Gary Coffman) wrote:
>
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >
>> >I'm hear to tell you this is bull.  If you want to learn code
>> >there is only one way.  Practice, practice, practice.  It's
>> >been proven that the most learning impared and low I.Q. folks
>> >can learn to copy code, and if I can learn how to do it, trust
>> >me, you can do it to.

  Learning code does not have very much to do with IQ, whatever that
  is. CW is a kind of craftmanship and that makes
  it a very special and enjoyable part of this hobby!
  That is perhaps why some of the CW bashers are so frustrated,
  they have to practice to learn code,  can't just study it in
  literature.

  Nils SM5RIH




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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1179
******************************