QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/941191.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 16KB

Date: Sat,  5 Nov 94 04:30:13 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 #1191
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Sat,  5 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1191

Today's Topics:
              ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?
                  FCC new license processing time...
                       Help from KAGOLD users!
                         Icom IC781 For Sale
                            License info?
                       MOSLEY PRO-67B ANTENNA?
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (3 msgs)
                           regency 1090 mod
                        VEC for Portland, OR?

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: 31 Oct 94 15:32:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (John Rice)
Subject: ARRL to change "Silent Keys" label in QST?

> M{>>     Maybe "Final QRT" would be a suitable choice.
> M{>>
>
> M{>               I Actually think that would be a good title for ALL
> M{>       CLASSES of operators. But then on the other hand, the PTT
> M{>       button on a mike is sometimes refered to as 'A KEY!'
>
> Come to think of it... if you had an external modulator, you might very
> well be using the old key for a PTT button!


It's a shame that mindless 'Political Correctness' is creeping in everywhere.



--------

   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
   [e-mail]           |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
   [e-mail]            |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5065 - (bbs )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV

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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 08:10:43 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Tony Herrington)
Subject: FCC new license processing time...

Just to add my $.02 worth:
My ticket just arrived today (11/3), and I took the tests at the Louisville
Hamfest on 10/1...so that makes 4 weeks, 5 days...do we have a new record?

73
N9YXX (!)

--
  /---------------\     /----------------------------------------\
 / Tony Herrington \   / "Never try to outstubborn a cat..."      \
 \ [e-mail] /   \                  -- Lazarus Long         /
  \---------------/     \----------------------------------------/

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

Date: 3 Nov 1994 08:36:45 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Smith)
Subject: Help from KAGOLD users!

Hello,

  I recently upgraded my Kagold packet software to version 9.03 which has
many more features than what I use to have. In this version you can make
.cmd files which will allow remoter users to access the CD-ROM callbook
and mod files. Ive been successful in coming up with a .cmd file that
will allow this but what Im wondering, is there .cmd file that would
allow the remote user to access my PBBS so they wouldn't have to
disconnect from my system and then reconnect to the PBBS callsign? I
don't want to turn the CMSG PBBS when Im gone or they wont be able to use
the CD-ROM so I have my shutdown.tnc file set for CMSG ON. If there is a
way to accomplish what I want to do please drop me a line and let me
know. Also, I would like to hear any other nice .cmd file suggestions.

   Thank you very much,
      Smitty / KB7QEY                       [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 94 11:35:48 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Icom IC781 For Sale





    Icom 781-  Like new condition, non-smoker.  Original owner
           new price in Ham Radio Outlet catalog Fall/Winter
           94 is $8835.00!  Service Manual.


           sell- $3750.00        FedEx shipping included
                    30 day warranty

      -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Stephen C. Gross T-4 Plt 707              Pilot B737
    America West Airlines              e-mail: [e-mail]
    Phoenix, AZ                  tel:  [phone]
      -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 5 Nov 1994 00:10:39 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Scott Rowin)
Subject: License info?

    Is there a internet connection to find out if a license has
been granted by the FCC?  -- I seriously doubt that they've got that
far along with the speed-up process.  Anyhow if not that easy, then
maybe a dialup for modem, or just plain voice phone #?
    Just ready to start talking and the famous "waiting period"
has got me itching real bad to get going on this.  Given the past
info from other recent license obtainees, next week it should be issued.

            --> Scott

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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 23:28:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: MOSLEY PRO-67B ANTENNA?

[e-mail] wrote:

: This previous weekend for the CQWW Phone Contest, I used the Mosley
: PRO-67B Beam Antenna at a friend's shack.  I was *very* disappointed
: with this antenna's performance, specifically it's F/B ratio.   The
: antenna acted like a rotating vertical rather than the expensive beam
: antenna that it is.  E.G.  While rotating the beam and listening to a
: distant station, it seemed that the DX station signal remained the same,
: regardless of where the beam was pointing.

This certainly is a feature. It reduces that wear and tear on the rotor.
Also makes it easier to work JA's while running LU's.

: This antenna was assembled according to Mosley instructions.  The SWR is
: pretty good for this antenna, less than 2.0:1 on all frequencies and
: bands.  Before I do anything drastic, Does anyone out there on the net
: have any experience with this antenna?

Don't have any experince with this antenna, but my TA-33 is not a
hot antenna either.

: Please respond either here or directly to my address below.  Any opinions
: as to how best to proceed would be *sincerely* appreciated.


: Thanks!

: Dan Swift, N5UPG

Jim, WA6SDM
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Nov 1994 18:08:02 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Hank Oredson)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
|> Dave Horsfall ([e-mail]) wrote:
|> : In article <[e-mail]>,
|> :     [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
|> :
|> : | All bulletins are broadcasting.  They are sent in many directions.  When be
|> : | forwarded, the receiving station did not ask for them.  The sending station
|> : | has no expectation that the receiving BBS will read or reply to them.
|> :
|> : Dunno about your neck of the woods, mate, but here down under the sender
|> : presents a brief list of bulletins, and the receiver is invited to
|> : accept or reject them...
|>
|> When being forwarded?  Really?  How does that work?  I can understand the
|> user being queried but as the quote says, we are talking about forwarding.

Oh, it works quite well, actually!

The receiver may reject a message presented during forwarding
for any reason whatsoever.

This is how the system has worked for the past half-dozen years.

(Jeff, WA7MBL first implemented it in about 1986, and all the
current BBS codes now use his method)

Steve, have you ever actually OPERATED packet and watched
what the systems are doing?  Might be a good idea to spend
a few hours on air to see how it all works.

   ...  Hank


--

Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics             Library Operations
Internet     : [e-mail]    "Parts 'R Us!"
Amateur Radio: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 07:21:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

:
: Steve, have you ever actually OPERATED packet and watched
: what the systems are doing?  Might be a good idea to spend
: a few hours on air to see how it all works.
:

Aw, there you go getting grumpy again.

Like I told F6FNB, lot of people are doing the same thing you are, don't pat
a hole in your back over your 100k messages a year.  We all have those same
political agenda, recipes, sewing lessons, Rush Limbaugh, and other
informational bulletins (that are beginning to consume the majority of
the amateur radio network).

Your arguements are too far tangent and no longer of relevance.

73,
Steve
     Internet      :  [e-mail]
     Amateur Radio :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na
     MSYS Mail List:  [e-mail] ('info' for title)

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:49:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Hank Oredson ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
: Steve,
:
: sorry, but you are just plain wrong here.
:
: Please think about how things work, read part 97, and then
: come back and join in the discussion with some useful ideas.
:
: This horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
:
:    ...  Hank

Is this supposed to be a form of arguement?

Ah!  I was just plain wrong!  No wonder!

73,
Steve

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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 07:52:48 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Hindin)
Subject: regency 1090 mod



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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 17:50:30
From: [e-mail] (Jim Swenson)
Subject: VEC for Portland, OR?

Can anyone give me a VEC referral number for Portland, Or.  Thanks.

Jim Swenson

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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 13:08:07 -0500
From: [e-mail] (John E. Taylor III)

References<38unpq$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No code Techs and CW...

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Mitch Robinson) wrote:

>
> On the other hand, there are hams such as myself that have been trying for
> over ten >years< to get the speed up to general level with no luck (due to
> a mild form of dyslexia).
>
> >I< tend to get riled up when "higher-class" hams look down at us lowely
> techs with such distain.  MOST extras I know don't do that, and in fact
> are against the 13 and 20wpm >requirements< for testing.  But I run into
> the "pro-code" factions more than enough to give extras a bad name in my
> book.

Can I be a pro-code extra who doesn't look down on techs?  You seem to make
the two conditions mutually exclusive.  The technician license has proved a
_great_ entry point into amateur radio, and I have no problem with those
who feel it satisfies all their needs.  Lots of tech are excellent
operators.  Many of them--a majority in my experience--also upgrade.

If, in fact, you have a learning disability--and there are people who
do--you should consider the medical-certificate route.  I have to admit
that I lift an eyebrow when people present them at the VE sessions,
primarily because it's an easily abused thing, but we accept them.

>
>  "I (we) had to pass 20wpm so you have to"
>  "It is a filter to keep the CBers out"
>  "It is a tradition"
>
>  Bullshit.  Pure and simple.
>
>  IMHO, morse code requirements for testing beyond 5wpm is unjustified.
> Period.  It does not provide any proof that a particular individual is
> "entitled" to operate on HF frequencies any more than passing 5wpm does.
> It does not keep the riff-raff off the hf bands (witness all the crap from
> extras there!).  As a tradition, it is decades passed.  Spark transmitters
> are a tradition, why not use them today?

Spark was a terribly _inefficient_ mode; it could take up nearly a whole
band.  CW is about 5 to 10 times _more_ efficient than SSB for bandwidth
usage, and significantly more efficient in "miles per watt" than SSB.  Bad
analogy.

What the Morse requirement does is force the average ham to learn it, which
is no big deal (again, that's for the _average_ ham), and does prepare him
to use it if he wants.  There are a _lot_ of people who discovered CW was
_fun_ once they learned Morse.  They probably wouldn't have ever realized
it if they hadn't _had_ to learn it.  Because of its efficiency, it is
_not_ a mode that ought to be ignored.

Granted that not everybody will find CW his favorite, any more than he'll
find, say, satellite operation enjoyable.  But that's no excuse for
eliminating questions on satellite operation from the written exams, right?

>  I am sick to death of being called a "whiner" or "complainer" when I ask
> for a LOGICAL explanation why I am not allowed to use VOICE on HF simply
> because I cannot get my (receiving) code speed up to par???

Hey, if you have a legitimate problem here, and are not using this just as
an excuse because you haven't seriously tried, then I don't think you're a
whiner.  There are alternatives: the medical certificate I mentioned
earlier, and the sending test you mention below.  Go for it!!

> BTW, even tho I cannot receive code faster than about 9wpm, I can >send<
> code at about 25wpm; the only problem I have with it is attempting to read
> the text to send as I have trouble "connecting" the printed character with
> the code to send from time to time.  I have been this way for about 10
> years now, and despite all the years of practice, it does not look like
> this will change for me.
>
> It has been suggested here that I attempt to find a VE that will allow me
> to take the 20wpm test by >sending<.  I am tring that currently..

Good luck, and if you do have difficulty finding a VE team that'll accept
the sending exam, check with ARRL.  They may have some information on which
of their VEs will accept it.

--
John Taylor    (W3ZID)     |  "The opinions expressed are those of the
[e-mail] |   writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."

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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 19:58:26 -0500
From: [e-mail]

References<37subu$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ARRL And Gay Hams Settle Complaint

No, I think we DID NOT.

I don't give a rats ass what sexual prefrence you are.  If
someone in my club is gay, I could care less.  All I'm saying
is that if gay people want to be accepted into society as a
whole, they would stop this foolishness.

Look at it this way, if a gay person was prohibited from
joining say, the local QRP club, he/she would sure as hell
raise a stink, but this is NOT the case.  I've never seen a
question on a membership ap relating to this subject!  Why can
the gay people just join the same ham club everyone else does.

As I said, I don't care if there is any gay folks in my club, I
don't go asking if there are.  Quite frankly, no one in my club
knows my sexual prefrence because NO ONE CARES.  Why don't they
care?  Because I don't make a big stink over it!

But at least my comments got your attention!
73 and take it easy
[e-mail]
N3OGH

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1191
******************************