QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940468.txt

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

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 04:30:08 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 #468
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu, 29 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  468

Today's Topics:
                           10 Meter Beacon
                         Future of Marine HF

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: 28 Sep 94 23:43:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 10 Meter Beacon
To: [e-mail]

--Boundary (ID M/2374Y9dqWFWcXaRnQATA)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN


Thanks to all for answering my questions about rules involving
beacons....

Kevin (WB5RUE)  [e-mail]

--Boundary (ID M/2374Y9dqWFWcXaRnQATA)--

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 10:17:26 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!news.cc.emory.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Future of Marine HF
To: [e-mail]

A previous post quoted an article which predicted the doom of marine HF
due to the CG's cessation of CW monitoring.  This is a very narrow view
of the utility of the marine HF raonge.  It is true that CW is on its way
out, but in its place are coming many other modes that will be useful to
mariners, not the least of which are the "data" modes like RTTY and SITOR
(telex).  These modes combined with the proper computer equipment
currently provide weather information, including color satellite maps.

Marine HF is changing, but its not going to die off anytime soon.

My $0.02,

Doug
KE6LZM

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

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:26:48 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Interesting data

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard McAllister) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>>Wow, what a boring life you must lead to sit and make such a count!

Hey, wait a minute Jeff!  Admittedly, at first, the thought of collecting
and playing with r.r.a.p. posts did seem revulsive and repugnant. But then
some people collect string into huge balls, some collect aluminum foil from
chewing gum wrappers into huge balls.  So why not collect r.r.a.p. posts.;-)

73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX
[e-mail]
=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================


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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:50:25 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <361ro8$[e-mail]>, <366mu9$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>uc.edu
Subject : Re: Deaf Ham & CW

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>I thought they don't waive the 5wpm test since at that speed one could
>copy the code visually (keying a lightbulb).

That may be a reason behind the rational, but it still holds that VEs
cannot waive a 5wpm test.  (I've never seen it taken another way, but it
could be possible.)  To have a waiver, a licensee must first pass a 5

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:44:02 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <35tijf$[e-mail]>, <35toef$[e-mail]>, <367veb$[e-mail]>t
Subject : Re: Welcome back, Robert Coyle (was Re: Get Over It)

In article <367veb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dr. Michael Mancini) writes:
>If this is true, can non-hams give their input to this debate.
>I think it might add a new prespective to this discussion.

Certainly, just don't tell someone that just because they do not hold an
Extra Class license they are not qualified to enter into the debate.
After all, they *do* have more of a license than you do.

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:48:14 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <365auf$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>astat
Subject : Re: Even more interesting (was Re: Interesting data)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If you are only seeking efficient communications then you
>must consider giving up all voice comms in favor of digital.
>Therefore, all test questions dealing with SSB and FM should
>be deleted, for it's unfair to test perspective hams on these
>ancient modes. We need to stop perserving history!

If you'd actually listen to the arguments (or read them, as the case may
be), you will notice that *most* of them have some mention of morse code
not being used outside of the amateur community (at least very little,
and growing smaller all the time).  SSB and FM are still very common,
but code isn't.  That's the big difference.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 14:18:03 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <35d0ea$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>wyn
Subject : Re: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:

>Of course we don't listen to the signal.  One of the things that makes
>digital operation so pleasant is that one doesn't have to listen to all the
>QRN.  This doesn't cause QRM, since we listen *first*.  Anyway, CW signals
>are clearly visible in the tuning indicator LEDs.  I'm sure that some people
>have had their CW QSOs trod on by a digital station starting up, but then I
>hear CW people tuning up and calling CQ on top of the W1AW code practice
>transmission almost every night.

At first glance one might think that this scenario is all that is necessary to
avoid being a source of QRM.  However, when you break it down, it says:

 "I don't give a damn about whether there is another QSO there or not because
   it doesn't bother me if there is."

The "we listen *first*" is a false virtue from carrier assured, wired
CSMA systems that has been misapplied to wide area, marginal connectivity,
wireless conditions and shows a lack of understanding of the detailed
characteristics of the HF digital modes, and HF propagation in general.
Everyone should listen first before transmitting, but it is clearly not
happening with many of the HF digital operators.

"clearly visible in the tuning indicator LED's".. well what about all of those
TNC's that don't have a tuning indicator?  Lack of LED's withstanding, the
side of the HF CW QSO that you are QRMing is likely not the one you see/hear,
it is the one you don't see/hear.

Finally, justifying being a source of QRM, because some others are doing
likewise, is something I have yet to find authorized in Part 97.

73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX
[e-mail]
=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================


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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:55:59 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <366mu9$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <3697v1$[e-mail]>eston.
Subject : Re: Deaf Ham & CW

In article <3697v1$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William J Turner) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>>I thought they don't waive the 5wpm test since at that speed one could
>>copy the code visually (keying a lightbulb).
>
>That may be a reason behind the rational, but it still holds that VEs
>cannot waive a 5wpm test.  (I've never seen it taken another way, but it
>could be possible.)  To have a waiver, a licensee must first pass a 5

Something is wrong here.  Some software here must be screwing up.  It
should say "...must first pass a 5 wpm code test."

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:00 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!wrdis02.robins.af.mil!ewirb-wr![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <366qha$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>mil
Subject : Re: Get Over It

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitch Robinson) writes...

>I have been reading this newsgroup for only a couple of days, but am
>dissappointed by the flaming going on...

I agree with you Mitch.  From my observations, there appears to be a lot of
rock throwing but not much problem solving going on in this newsgroup.

>I have been trying for 10 years to get up to 13 wpm, with very little
>success.  You see, I have a definite problem with patterns, very similar
>to dyslexia.  For example, when I hear a Q, Y, F, or L, I immediately know
>that ONE of them was sent, but not WHICH one.  However, the way the
>Handicapped provision is written, I don't qualify for the waiver.

Sorry to hear of your problem, Mitch.  I wonder if the license process could be
modified so that people could choose from a varity of ways of demonstrating
proficiency.  I think maybe the emphasis on CW internationally began, and has
continued, because it is perceived to be the most widely available mode of
operation.  Many hams in more remote regions of the world are not as blessed
with $$$ or local dealers for the scads of equipment commonly available
elsewhere.  In spite of that, it seems that we could provide a means for
someone to show proficiency in, say, working satellites, for example, as an
alternative to higher code speeds.  The CW buff could, of course, still opt for
higher code speed as the testing method of choice.  The other alternatives
may involve more effort than the VEC would want to deal with for small testing
sessions.  But, perhaps it would be workable at larger gatherings, hamfests,
and the like.

>The ONLY qso's I found in CW that night that even mentioned the
>quake did so in passing.  No traffic handling at all.

I don't know about that one Mitch.  Maybe CW is more of DX thing and less of a
local emergency thing.  You might check with hams that handle emergency traffic
and emergency situations for a thorough explanation.

>Work 10meter, you say?  Yeah, sure.  Again, nothing there.  All the action
>was on 20 and 40.

This is probably due to propagation characteristics more than anything.  In
other words, I don't think there is an aversion to working 10 meters.

>I qualify as being an appliance operator.  At least according to the
>definitions in this news-group.  I currently do not own/use any ham-gear
>that I built myself.

I, personally don't see anything wrong with that, Mitch.  However, I do feel
that Amateur Radio is a special form of activity for which the word "hobby" is
not quite sufficient.  The word "service" in Amateur Radio Service is too often
overlooked.  Ideally, I believe hams should involve themselves in either
volunteer service of some type (RACES, ARES, MARS, CAPS, community activities,
etc.) or in furthering the radio art, as it is called.  If you're a hands-on,
techie, "I like to build it" type of person, then furthering the radio art is
probably a good avenue for you.  Otherwise, find some way to become involved in
using Amateur Radio in one of the volunteer service avenues.

Best of luck, Mitch, and let's hope things move forward to the benefit of hams
and nonhams alike.

Walt Soderman
KE4QOH

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #468
******************************