QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940599.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22.3 KB

Date: Tue, 31 May 94 13:58:44 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #599
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 31 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  599

Today's Topics:
                    "The Rhythm of the Code" tape
                          2 meter thru-glass
                    40m/80m USB mil radio sked/net
                    EI7M (was Re: DX QSL Good Guy)
                    Got card from HH2PK! (2 msgs)
                    Ham Radio few problem (3 msgs)
                       Ham Radio few problems!
         HELP! What does a 'defruiter' do?? (RADAR context).
                      HF starter rig recommenda
                    Outward bound DX QSL mailers?
                         PRB-1:  How Strong?
                          QSL bureaux, N7RO
                             Six meter HT
                             TRANSVERTERS

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 May 1994 19:46:34 GMT
From: pa.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: "The Rhythm of the Code" tape
To: [e-mail]

I miss the days of Dearfield Hosstraders where I used to camp near the Rythm of the
Code guy....

Nothing like waking up in the morning hearing

DIT DAH DAH ALPHA
DAH DIT DIT DIT BRAVO
DAH DIT DAH DIT CHARLIE
.
.
.

Ira WA1W

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 06:28:03 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!iat.holonet.net!oasis![e-mail]
Subject: 2 meter thru-glass
To: [e-mail]

David

The best source of antenna from the users.  Not some fancy
written article.

Thru-glass antennas work, with about 2 db of loss.

The biggest problem, the antenna needs to be on top of the car
if possible. Could double your range.

John, N6QQ

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:35:37 GMT
From: spsgate!mogate!newsgate!hofbrau.sps.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: 40m/80m USB mil radio sked/net
To: [e-mail]

Looking for an existing sked or net or to establish one with users of
surplus military radios on 40m or 80m.  Some of these radios are only
capable of USB, therefore the need for a net or sked since you can call CQ
all nite on 40m USB and never get an answer...

--
* Chris Terwilliger, AA7WD                 [e-mail] *
* Motorola                                    [e-mail] *
* Phoenix Corporate Research Labs         those who forget the past *
* 2100 E. Elliot Rd. EL508               are condemned to repeat it *
* Tempe, AZ  85284                               - George Santayana *

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

Date: 31 May 1994 18:46:48 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: EI7M (was Re: DX QSL Good Guy)
To: [e-mail]

In article <2rpg4d$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (DGoodman) writes:

> In article <2raq30$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kok Chen) writes:

> > Hmmm, did you really get the cards back through EI5HB?  EI7M's
> > manager is EI5FT, who I recently received my card from.

> I must have sent them to EI5FT, as listed in my GO list, but they
> came back signed by EI5HB for contest QSOs in 10/93 and 2/94.

EI5HB is the current manager, EI5FT is the former manager, but he
forwards the cards to EI5HB to be answered.

The W6GO list incorrectly listed EI5HC as the manager for a while.
EI5HC has no ties to the EI7M group and didn't forward all the cards
he received.

W6GO currently lists EI5FT as the manager, however, EI7DNB and I are
lobbying to change it to EI5HB.

73 - Jim AD1C

--
Jim Reisert AD1C                Internet:  [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!mlo.dec.com!reisert
146 Main Street    - MLO5-2/M16    Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754        FAX:       [phone]

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

Date: 31 May 1994 19:44:42 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Got card from HH2PK!
To: [e-mail]

I am happy to say that, against my best judgment, I sent a card out to
Haiti in March and got a reply yesterday!

The corners were cut off the return envelope (shredded in machine, or
maybe the US gov't looking for contraband coming OUT of Haiti?), but the
card inside remained totally unharmed, as if the envelope were held by
one end while the corners were clipped so as to not damage any of the
contents, and then FLIPPED to achieve the same on the other end...

Or maybe it was the Haitian mail system - I have no idea.  But it did get
through, and if HH2PK never got the $1 bill I included, then he's either
awfully nice or awfully wealthy (guess if he's on the radio, he's the
latter, eh?) to send me a card anyway, as something like 90% of mail
going into Haiti gets opened and pilfered, or something ridiculous
like that.



--
73,                            _________   _________  The
                            \ /  Long   Original
Scott Rosenfeld  Amateur Radio NF3I  Burtonsville, MD     |   Live    $5.00
  WAC-CW/SSB  WAS  DXCC - 125 QSLed on dipoles __________| Dipoles! Antenna!

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 20:23:25 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!news1.boi.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Got card from HH2PK!
To: [e-mail]

Scott Richard Rosenfeld ([e-mail]) wrote:

: The corners were cut off the return envelope (shredded in machine, or
: maybe the US gov't looking for contraband coming OUT of Haiti?), but the
: card inside remained totally unharmed, as if the envelope were held by
: one end while the corners were clipped so as to not damage any of the
: contents, and then FLIPPED to achieve the same on the other end...

You will find this practice in several countries. I beleive most of the
cards I received this way were European. My understanding is that they
get a cheaper postage rate this way.  Unlike the U.S., there are several
outgoing air mail classes.

Jim, WA6SDM
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:33:53 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Ham Radio few problem
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> I do not see why people would go out and buy equipment for a place
> where they aren't welcome.  This is, perhaps, mostly the fault of the
> ham radio stores; they don't tell people that the dual-band x/440
> radios are really only useful if you are invited on one of the closed
> systems on 440.  Luckily, manufacturers are now selling 2m/220 and
> 2m/220/1200 radios which should be much more popular.

You know, this is a good point which most people don't even think
of. Closed repeaters on 440mhz were the standard in most areas,
because 2m was heavily used and the coordinating bodies wanted to
insure that the open repeaters were coordinated on frequencies which
many people used.

Of course, over time, demographics change. With the demand for dual-
band radios over the past two years, people are able to inexpensively
get on 440mhz. Then they cry FOUL! when they find out that most 440mhz
repeaters are closed. Well, that's tough. Five to ten years ago when
you wanted to set up a closed repeater you were told you had to do it
on 440mhz. So, you make the investment and do it. Now, just because of
the influx of many VHF operators and low-cost equipment you're going to
change the rules, after trustees have spent thousands of dollars, simply
because some people are mad that they can't yack on 440mhz without
joining a repeater group?

As the trustee of a coordinated closed repeater, if anyone told me that I had
a choice to either "open" my machine or loose coordination, I would opt for
choice number three: protect my legal, FCC-recognized closed repeater
coordination via litigation.

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."

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

Date: 31 May 94 18:41:35 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!fc.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Ham Radio few problem
To: [e-mail]

In rec.radio.amateur.misc article <[e-mail]> you wrote:

> Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
> define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
> on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
> in fact violating Part 97.

> You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.

> MD

Nonsense, Mike.  Part 97 says only that repeater trustees may restrict
access. There is no distinction in the regs between open or closed repeaters.
In other words, if someone gets on the frequency, and they happen
to activate the repeater, the control op has the option of shutting down the
repeater or activating other measures to restrict usage to all but authorized
users. This is the meaning of "restrict access", IMO. You may own a
repeater, but you don't own a frequency -- and I believe part 97 supports
that view, since the only protection repeaters are given is against other
uncoordinated repeaters on the same frequency (and malicious interference, of
course).  The latest edition of part 97 even states that unintended triggering
of carrier-operated repeaters by spread spectrum transmissions is not
considered interference. If the FCC has ever taken action against hams who were
only attempting to use a repeater (non maliciously), I haven't heard of it and
would be interested in any actual cases. Note that in the current case in
California, the FCC has apparently chosen not to take action so far.
As a repeater trustee myself and an officer for several years of a repeater
club, I'd be very interested in any evidence to the contrary.

If you insist on operating a system closed to all but a select few, it's up
to you to secure it appropriately. If you took reasonable measures to secure
a machine (such as requiring a tone sequence on a control frequency to
activate it) you might have a case against unauthorized users. If the repeater
is carrier or PL-access, I doubt your arguments, impassioned as they are,
cut any mustard with the FCC, since you are not taking any effective
measures to restrict access.

Fortunately, here in Colorado we have only a few "closed" machines, although
almost all clubs restrict phone patches to members. We deal with the few
problem users, and the FCC field office is very cooperative. Even in
urban areas (Denver/Boulder) "open" is the general expectation, and it
works well. New users try out a range of machines, and usually wind up joining
the group(s) that operate the machines they use the most, usually with little
or no pressure. Perhaps the fact that our repeater operators have a better
attitude than some in California or on the East Coast leads to fewer problems
and more cooperation from our local FCC staff.

73,

John, NK0R

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 19:23:11 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Ham Radio few problem
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|>[e-mail] (Roger Bly) writes:
|>
|>> By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
|>> malicious interference.   Maybe I need to think of a better word
|>> for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
|>> conversation, we call it jamming.  We operate legally within Part 97
|>> and the Communications Act of 1934.
|>
|>Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
|>define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
|>on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
|>in fact violating Part 97.

Please cite the relevant rule from Part 97 that disallows the use of a closed
repeater?  My recollection is that it simply allows the repeater owner to
disallow the use of his/her equipment, i.e. the repeater owner may turn
off the repeater if they choose not to allow outsiders to use the equipment.

The frequency on the other hand is clearly owned by whomever is using it at
the time. Part 97 does _not_ grant exclusive use of a frequency to the
repeaters owner.  The coordination portion of Part 97 only mentions
interference to a coordinated repeater from another uncoordinated repeater.
That is as close as the FCC goes to granting exclusive use of an amateur
frequency.


|>You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.

Well many of us feel that you are a prime example of why we should have
retroactive abortions.  :-)

Also, can this discussion PLEASE move to rec.radio.amateur.policy where such
tripe belongs?  Thank you.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: 31 May 1994 18:16:08 GMT
From: yar.cs.wisc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Ham Radio few problems!
To: [e-mail]

Brad Ward <[e-mail]> wrote:
> TP> need traffic advisories on the amateur bands.
>
>    I thought one thing they taught was to free the bands for mobile
>    operations during rush hours for drivers to inform of conditions..

Not in Rhode Island.  :)
--
Jason J. Hanson        |    22 Langdon Street #220    |  [phone]
Univ. of Wisconsin     |    Madison, WI 53703-1344    |  Ham: N9LEA (Extra)
--  [e-mail]      =*++*=      n9lea@wd9esu.#scwi.wi.usa.noam  --

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

Date: 31 May 1994 20:11:32 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!scorpion.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: HELP! What does a 'defruiter' do?? (RADAR context).
To: [e-mail]

In article <2sb6tj$[e-mail]>,
Jim Bromley, W5GYJ <[e-mail]> (that's me!) wrote:

>A defruiter removes non-interrogated transponder responses from a
>radar display.

>The defruiter simply delays the received transponder video for one
>pulse repetition period and then does an exclusive-or function between
>it and the currently received signal...  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oops.  That should have been a LOGICAL AND function.  It was late at
night when I replied, etc. etc.

Jim, W5GYJ

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 06:24:08 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!iat.holonet.net!oasis![e-mail]
Subject: HF starter rig recommenda
To: [e-mail]

Vinod

My vote is for a Kenwood TS-820S.

The radio does use 6146 series of tubes.

John - N6QQ

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:07:54 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!cauldron!ra.csc.ti.com![e-mail]
Subject: Outward bound DX QSL mailers?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]> requests info about QSLing services.
>
 Nils:
 I know of only one outbound QSL service still active. Dick Moen,
 N7RO, provides a QSLIng service.

 73, Bob Winn, W5KNE
 [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 06:20:12 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!iat.holonet.net!oasis![e-mail]
Subject: PRB-1:  How Strong?
To: [e-mail]

Roger

Try living in Cerritos, Ca.  Have all kinds of problems.


Prb-1 was a good ideal, now we need something stronger.

FCC is thinking about changing PRB-1, but who knows what
direction they will go.

John, N6QQ

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

Date: 31 May 1994 19:16:26 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!astro.as.utexas.edu![e-mail]
Subject: QSL bureaux, N7RO
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Scott Richard Rosenfeld NF3I) replies:

 ><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Many thousand years ago when I was seriously active on HF, there
>>were always a couple people who ran outward going DX QSL services.
>>I'd send 'em a check for a couple bucks and a package of QSLs for
>>the DX stations I'd worked and this person would forward batches
>>to all the DX QSL bureaus (and sometimes managers). It was cheap,
>>quick and easy.
>>
>>Do any of these poor, deluded and suffering souls still exist. I

>YES, these people still exist.  One is Dick Moen, N7RO, who runs a
>DX QSL'ing service from Washington state.  For something like $2.00
>for seven cards, he waits until he gets a bunch of cards for some
>particular station overseas, and then mails them out.  It's a pretty
>good deal - kind of like a DX clearing house for those DX who aren't
>reachable through the bureaus.
>

It's not so much for "those DX who aren't reachable through the
bureaus", as it is for DXers who are too lazy to find out the
managers of DX stations they work, or who don't work much DX anyway.

I get packets of 50-100 cards at a time from N7RO, for the various
stations for which I am QSL manager.   In every case, these could
have been sent via the ARRL bureau (you can send to domestic stations
who are managers for DX ones).   He supplies me with a stamped returned
envelope, sorts the cards by calls (of the DX stations), and you get
the cards back a little faster than by going via the ARRL bureau, since
I wait until I have a few hundred before I mail to the ARRL bureau, but
send his cards back fairly promptly.

Still, in every case, I could be reached direct (costs you 58c a time,
outward and return envelope) or via ARRL bureau (costs you 0c).  I would
think his service is mostly useful for those with a small number of cards,
those with no access to a list of QSL managers, and I suppose non-ARRL
members, who can't use their outgoing bureau.

It costs me (or the DX station) a few dollars to send 100 cards at a time
(basic card costs), and he doesn't use any of your dollars to support that,
but then most people don't anyway.

As far as I know, he is the only person doing this, at least he's the only
one I get cards from in this way.  Interestingly,  I do get batches of a
dozen or more cards at a time sent directl to me from the Czech (OK) bureau,
and I just got 250 HC8N cards sent to me from the Ecuador bureau, for people
who didn't know the correct QSL route.

If you want a card for HC8N, HD9N, 9V1YC, WN4KKN/(ZP5, TI4, HC5 or HC8) or
ZP0Y (only 1990 and 1991 CQWW-CW contests) send an SASE to me or to me via
the ARRL bureau.


Derek Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX)
Department of Astronomy, University of Texas,
Austin TX 78712.  (512-471-1392)
[e-mail]

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

Date: 31 May 94 19:37:09 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex.com![e-mail]
Subject: Six meter HT
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Salemi) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, Michael Lo ([e-mail]) writes:
>>       Are there any 6 meter Handheld radio avaliable in the market ?
>>
>>       I think it have be FM. Any SSB or AM model ?
>>

>Azden makes a 6m handheld, FM only.  I think it puts out 10w, and is
>advertised in all the major ham magazines here in the US.

Is it modifiable for out of band transmit on the cordless phone bands?  :-)

David

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

Date: 31 May 94 17:58:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TRANSVERTERS
To: [e-mail]

Hello,

    I would like to get ahold of a transverter that would
allow me to operate all modes on 6 meters. I have a Kenwood
TS-140S and a TR-751A ( all mode on 2 meters ). Are there any
kits or plans available for such a transverter? Any other
ideas?

73's and TNX
Bill Rogers, KA2CKI

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
                               |
Bill Rogers                    | Tel: [phone]
Development Engineer           | Fax: [phone]
                               |
ABB Process Automation         |
Post Office Box 22685          |
Rochester, New York 14692-2685 |
                               |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 31 May 94 11:45:55 -0400
From: usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!eff!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!spcuna!@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2s5sl8$[e-mail]>, <2s5uma$[e-mail]>p.ee
Subject : Re: IDing

In article <2s5uma$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Haymore) writes:
>
> As was mentioned before, some hams scan a number of different
> frequencies -- and the radio may have continued on to the next one
> before the listener has a chance to stop the scan.  Announcing the
> frequency allows him to know which memory channel to go back to.
>

Do all of your repeaters sound alike? Don't they have different courtesy beeps
or ids that can distinguish them?

My favorite lately is not the guy who says "....monitoring 145.xx", it's the
guy who says "this is ..... monitoring the k9... repeater located in .....".
Nice to know that I have a talking repeater directory on the air.

73
KF9VC
Mike

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #599
******************************