QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940449.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 15.4 KB

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 04:30:17 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #449
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 16 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  449

Today's Topics:
            Built first rig? (was Re: Facts Speak volumes)
                         Facts Speak volumes
                          re-name this group
           Sum'tin for nut'in, key clicks for free (2 msgs)
                        Sum'tin for nut'in an

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 Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

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: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 19:36:39 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
Subject: Built first rig? (was Re: Facts Speak volumes)
To: [e-mail]


In article <3559mr$[e-mail]>, Dana Myers ([e-mail]) writes:
>In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:

>Heh-heh.
>
>>The cheapest/easiest way to get on from remote places is not going to be
>>homebrewing.  It's tough tracking down parts even in electronics-heavy areas
>>of the USA.  Sure, QRP CW transmitters can be about the simplest circuits
>>that actually do something.  But they're useless without a receiver.  (Where
>>*is* Gary Coffman?) A usable HF receiver doesn't get built as somebody's
>>first project out of old TVs that washed up on the beach.  And if a receiver
>>shows up, what a surprise - the CW receiver works for SSB too.  Given that
>>our hypothetical ham from Lower Slobbovia is going to have to scratch up a
>>surplus or commercial receiver, getting a transceiver doesn't seem that much
>>harder.
>
>Richard is absolutely correct. Just because it is easier to build a CW
>transmitter than an SSB transmitter doesn't make a lot of difference;
>building a decent receiver is about the same work for both, and is more
>work than building a transmitter for either.  I recall saying something
>about this recently, in regard to the "CW makes homebrewing possible"
>thread, but I'm not certain I made it clear in a post to the group.

I just want to repeat a clarification I have made before regarding this
claim.  While it is true that SSB and CW receivers are essentially the
same, it is also true, due to the narrower audio-frequency response
needed for CW work, and the relatively less crowded conditions on the CW
bands, that one can use a simpler direct conversion receiver with audio
filter with good results on CW, but such a receiver would be useless
most of the time on SSB.  IOW, while SSB *requires* a single-signal
receiver to be of any utility, CW does not (which is not to say we
wouldn't all like to have one).  The proof of this is that there are
many CW designs and kits out there using DC receivers, and they're
being used to make contacts every day.
>
>>A question: who here built their *first* rig (assembling a high-quality kit
>>doesn't count)?  Or even knows of somebody who did, within the last 30 years
>>or so?
>
>Oh, I did.  My first contact, as a Novice, was made using a 1W transmitter
>I built.  I'd bought the transmitter PC board, partially completed, at the
>local club auction for $.50.  I went to the local library, found the QST
>article that described it, saved up the cash to buy the toroids and other
>required parts, and got the transmitter built.  It was non-trivial effort.
>My receiver was built from a kit, a Realistic Glober Patrol super-regen,
>but I'm not sure it counts as a "high-quality" kit :-).
>
I give Dana full credit for his receiver.  Getting some kits working
can take as much skill as scratch-building.  I enjoy hearing
"first-rig" stories -- let's have more.

Mike, KK6GM

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

Date: 13 Sep 1994 03:33:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Facts Speak volumes
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>    Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Other nations needs do not effect the US amateurs "pool of trained radio
>>operators", which is the only arguement that comes close to being
>>relative to the US ARS.
>
>Part of the purpose of the US ARS is to enhance the international
>goodwill. You can't enhance goodwill if you can't communicate with
>people in countries where SSB is not feasible.

C'mon, Mike, you're waving your hands in the air.  In which countries today
is SSB not feasible?

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:04:22 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: re-name this group
To: [e-mail]

In article <3531kk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura) writes:
>In article <352r7h$[e-mail]>, Sailou <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>    Re-name this group rec.radio.cw.flamewars
>
>I couldn't agree more.  In the past week, there have been
>over 350 messages, of which less than 10 had to do with
>sumtin' other than CW.  Geez, there are other important
>issues with respect to amateur radio other than CW....
>Let's get with it guys (and gals).

Well Ken and Sailou, I recall reading, in possibly the FAQ, that
this newsgroup was created to take the code debate off of .misc.
Rather than counting the number of articles posted each week why
not spend more time on the ham bands (CW of course).


Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 15 Sep 1994 14:00:04 -0700
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!news.ossi.com!news.fujitsu.com!amdahl!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in, key clicks for free
To: [e-mail]

Alan Brubaker ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Speaking of something for nothing, here, with apologies to Mark
: Knopfler and Dire Straits, for your amusement and amazement, to
: the tune of "Money for Nothin'" is:
: -------------------------------------------------------------------

: Somethin' For Nuthin'

Great effort! If only Weird Al would produce it.


: --
: Alan Brubaker, K6XO      |~~|_  "Pumps have handles, Hams have names;

                                       Absolutely!

: <IYF disclaimer>         | *  |mine's Lee, what's yours?" - Lee Wical,
: Internet: [e-mail]|____|KH6BZF, the Bloomin' Zipper Flipper.


73's
Gene
KB7WIP

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

Date: 15 Sep 1994 14:26:47 GMT
From: es.com!nah![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in, key clicks for free
To: [e-mail]

Speaking of something for nothing, here, with apologies to Mark
Knopfler and Dire Straits, for your amusement and amazement, to
the tune of "Money for Nothin'" is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Somethin' For Nuthin'

Lookit them no-codes,
That's the way ya do it
Come to 2 meters from the old CB
That ain't workin',
That's the way to do it
Somethin' for nuthin', key clicks for free...

Now, that ain't workin'
That's the way to do it
Lemme tell ya them guys are lids
Maybe jam a RACES repeater
Maybe they're just a bunch o' kids

Gotta get on them wide range repeaters,
FM is the mode for me
Gotta find a new repeater
Gotta mess up the neighbor's TV

Lookit the geek with the glasses and the logbook
Yeah, buddy, that's his own rig
That geek has his own EME station
That geeks' signal is really big

Gotta get on them wide range repeaters,
FM is the mode for me
Gotta find a new repeater
Gotta mess up the neighbor's TV

I shoulda learned the Morse code
I should learned the theory too
Listen to that YL runnin' the pileup
Why can't I get in her log? Boo hoo!
And what do I hear? Hawaiian noises?
Sure enough - a KH6
That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it
I'm stuck on 2 meters - what a fix

Gotta get on them wide range repeaters,
FM is the mode for me
Gotta find a new repeater
Gotta mess up the neighbor's TV

Now, that ain't workin'
That's the way to do it
Lemme tell ya them guys are lids
Maybe jam a RACES repeater
Maybe they're just a bunch o' kids

I want my,
I want my,
I want my new HT...

I want my,
I want my,
I want my new HT...



--
Alan Brubaker, K6XO      |~~|_  "Pumps have handles, Hams have names;
<IYF disclaimer>         | *  |mine's Lee, what's yours?" - Lee Wical,
Internet: [e-mail]|____|KH6BZF, the Bloomin' Zipper Flipper.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 05:31:34 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in an
To: [e-mail]

cmoore@fallout (Cecil A. Moore -FT-~) writes:
>
> However, your argument
>is a lot more appealing than sifting through garbage for old TV parts.
>
>In 41 years as a ham, I have built almost everything except a CW trans-
>mitter. However, decoding CW better than I can has been my biggest
>challenge in the field of electronics/computers. Mother Nature is helping
>a lot because, at my age, I am going deaf... rhymes with Jeff. <---+
                                                                    |
I don't `sift' through garbage, Cec; the TV sets are always at      |
the curbside. Sheesh (rhymes with Cec).-----------------------------+

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 15 Sep 1994 15:19:23 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!sedona![e-mail].
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <357iaj$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>esh
Subject : Re: Facts Speak volumes

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Next time I visit Viet Nam I'll ask the locals about this ~50% figure.
>That figure seems to be accurate here in the US but we can't pretend
>our statistics fit the rest of the world.
>
>I believe people will operate with the mode they can both afford and
>and that will insure them a large number of contacts.
>
>CW satisfies both requirements; AM only provides for the former, not
>the latter.

Hi Jeff, make the figure 10% if you like. The fact remains that since an
AM transceiver is approximately the same complexity as a CW transceiver,
there should be _at least some_ "primitive" activity on AM if the original
premise was true.

>I deleted the rest of your post Cec, but you used the word `primitive'
>about 10 times in referring to third-world hams.

There you go again, Jeff, trying to change the subject. I also used the
word "primitive" to describe myself during the late 1950's. As you no
doubt know, I used the word "primitive" to describe the "rudimentary
technology" of third-world ham radio not the IQ of third-world hams.

>My best math students
>are students from very poor countries; they were held to *very* high
>educational standards back home regardless of how economically depressed
>their country is. Their countrymen are poor but certainly not primitive.

There you go again, Jeff, attacking the person instead of his argument.
My dictionary lists "rudimentary technology" as one of the definitions
of the word "primitive". If their countrymen are poor then, by definition,
they are "primitive". Once again, you have twisted someone's words into
a meaning not intended and tried to derail the train of thought.

Almost non-existent operation on AM by third-world hams means something...
what does it mean since AM is as easy and affordable as CW?
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC           Most of the doors in amateur radio can
(Not speaking for Intel)         not be opened by a  -.-.  .--  key.

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

Date: 12 Sep 1994 04:03:12 GMT
From: olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <34s6o1$[e-mail]>.edu
Subject : Re: dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah


>: Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

>: ...  .-.  ..    ---  --    .... ...-    --.- ...  ---    ....  .-.

>: .--.  .-..  ...    --.-  ...  --.-    .  ...    -  -.  -..-


In article <34s6o1$[e-mail]>,
prvalko <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hmmm.... Am I the only person here that senses a "chirpy" signal above?
>=paul= wb8zjl

Naw, if Jeff had lousy regulation on his sweep-tube transmitter
it would have been:

cheepchurrppchurrppcheep  cheepchurrppcheepcheep  cheepcheepcheep
churrppchurrppcheepchurrpp  cheepcheepcheep  churrppchurrppcheepchurrpp
cheep  cheepcheepcheep    churrpp  churrppcheep  churrppcheepcheepchurrpp

;-)  (cheepcheepcheepcheep  cheepcheep)

Jim Bromley, W5GYJ  <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 14 Sep 1994 20:07:03 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <354bu5$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>u
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject : Re: Where can I get a FULL copy of FCC's Part 97??


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Tracy (KC1SX)) writes:
|>Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
|>
|>: The ARRL probably received their copy in March or April of 1993; I
|>: don't suspect there have been any major rule changes since then -
|>
|>Unfortunately, it is true that this information is out of date.  However, it
|>is the only electronic copy in existance.  Fortunately, there is an update
|>in progress - I will make sure it is available shortly after it is
|>completed.

Well that's not entirely true unless the information in the copy of Part 97
that I have is incorrect.  It's an electronic copy received from the Internet
I think and indicats that it is updated as of November 8, 1993.  I'll be glad
to either post it, mail it, or whatever someone feels is appropriate.

73,
Todd
N9MWB
ex-ARRL member

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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 12:14:49 -0500
From: news.delphi.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Morse code as a common language? (was

Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> writes:

>R/T = radiotelegraph - you cannot, by law, sail a ship on the high seas
>without a first class radioTELEGRAPH license holder aboard.

You might want to tell Arthur C. Clarke that.  He used "RT" to mean
"radiotelephone" in his book "2001."  The initials DO match.

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #449
******************************