QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940621.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26.8 KB

Date: Sat,  4 Jun 94 03:30:51 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 #621
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Sat,  4 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  621

Today's Topics:
                           Cancun repeaters
       Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 03 June
                 General Class Testing in Chicago???
                 Legal Protections for Hams (2 msgs)
                      RFD:Radio repair rip-off??
                               Software
   WARNING: Potential Satellite Anomaly Warning (first post failed)

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: 3 Jun 94 16:25:09 -0600
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!atlas.tntech.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Cancun repeaters
To: [e-mail]

anyone know of any repeaters in Cancun?

73

Jeff, AC4HF

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

Date: 4 Jun 94 05:22:28 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!ve6mgs![e-mail]
Subject: Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 03 June
To: [e-mail]

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                 DAILY SUMMARY OF SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY

                                  03 JUNE, 1994

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                  (Based In-Part On SESC Observational Data)


SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY INDICES FOR 03 JUNE, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Electron fluence at greater than 2 MeV was at high to very high levels.
      Background x-ray flux was below A1.0.

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 154, 06/03/94
10.7 FLUX=068.3  90-AVG=082        SSN=000      BKI=3432 2334  BAI=016
BGND-XRAY=A1.0     FLU1=1.3E+05  FLU10=1.2E+04  PKI=4433 3334  PAI=019
  BOU-DEV=033,064,033,013,019,021,034,042   DEV-AVG=032 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= B1.0   @ 1548UT    XRAY-MIN= A1.0   @ 2323UT   XRAY-AVG= A2.4
NEUTN-MAX= +001%  @ 1840UT   NEUTN-MIN= -003%  @ 1710UT  NEUTN-AVG= -0.4%
  PCA-MAX= +0.2DB @ 1555UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 2230UT    PCA-AVG= +0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55341NT @ 0005UT   BOUTF-MIN=55290NT @ 2003UT  BOUTF-AVG=55314NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+000NT@ 0000UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 0000UT  G7-AVG=+079,+000,+000
GOES6-MAX=P:+145NT@ 1800UT   GOES6-MIN=N:-092NT@ 0339UT  G6-AVG=+107,+035,-035
 FLUXFCST=STD:070,070,070;SESC:070,070,070 BAI/PAI-FCST=020,020,020/025,020,020
    KFCST=3334 4333 3334 3332  27DAY-AP=040,036   27DAY-KP=6665 4343 5565 4344
 WARNINGS=*GSTRM;*AURMIDWRN
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!

NOTE: The Effective Sunspot Number for 02 JUN 94 is not available.
      The Full Kp Indices for 02 JUN 94 are: 4- 4- 4- 4o   3o 3o 3o 3o
      The 3-Hr Ap Indices for 02 JUN 94 are:  25  21  25  30  15  16  15  16
      Greater than 2 MeV Electron Fluence for 03 JUN is: 1.2E+09


SYNOPSIS OF ACTIVITY
--------------------

             Solar activity was very low.  No significant activity was
       observed the past 24 hours.  The disk remains spotless.

            Solar activity forecast:  solar activity is expected to be
       very low.

            The geomagnetic field has been at quiet to active levels for
       the past 24 hours.  Energetic electron flux (GT 2 MeV) ranged
       from moderate to high levels over the past 24 hours.

            Geophysical activity forecast:  the geomagnetic field is
       expected to be mostly quiet to active for the next three days.

            Event probabilities 04 jun-06 jun

                             Class M    01/01/01
                             Class X    01/01/01
                             Proton     01/01/01
                             PCAF       Green

            Geomagnetic activity probabilities 04 jun-06 jun

                        A.  Middle Latitudes
                        Active                25/25/25
                        Minor Storm           20/20/20
                        Major-Severe Storm    10/10/10

                        B.  High Latitudes
                        Active                20/25/25
                        Minor Storm           20/15/15
                        Major-Severe Storm    20/15/15

            HF propagation conditions continued below-normal over the
       high and polar latitude regions, but improved over the last 24
       hours.  Middle latitude paths have been near-normal.
       Additional night-sector substorm activity could continue to
       sporadically degrade high and polar latitude paths.  General
       fading levels are above-normal over most regions, but signal
       qualities are not significantly degraded except at times for
       transauroral circuits.  Conditions should continue to gradually
       improve over the next 3 days, through 06 June inclusive.


COPIES OF JOINT USAF/NOAA SESC SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL REPORTS
========================================================

REGIONS WITH SUNSPOTS. LOCATIONS VALID AT 03/2400Z JUNE
-------------------------------------------------------
NMBR LOCATION  LO  AREA  Z   LL   NN MAG TYPE
7728  S07W66  322                    PLAGE
REGIONS DUE TO RETURN 04 JUNE TO 06 JUNE
NMBR LAT    LO
NONE


LISTING OF SOLAR ENERGETIC EVENTS FOR 03 JUNE, 1994
---------------------------------------------------
BEGIN  MAX  END  RGN   LOC   XRAY  OP 245MHZ 10CM   SWEEP
NONE


POSSIBLE CORONAL MASS EJECTION EVENTS FOR 03 JUNE, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------
 BEGIN        MAX      END     LOCATION   TYPE   SIZE  DUR  II IV
     NO EVENTS OBSERVED


INFERRED CORONAL HOLES. LOCATIONS VALID AT 03/2400Z
---------------------------------------------------
               ISOLATED HOLES AND POLAR EXTENSIONS
      EAST   SOUTH  WEST   NORTH  CAR  TYPE  POL  AREA   OBSN
83   S60E36 S60E36 S40W90 S30W14  288  EXT   NEG   091 10830A
85   N10E71 S20E46 S20E46 N10E71  195  ISO   POS   013 10830A


SUMMARY OF FLARE EVENTS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------

 Date   Begin  Max   End  Xray  Op Region  Locn    2695 MHz  8800 MHz  15.4 GHz
------  ----  ----  ----  ----  -- ------ ------  --------- --------- ---------
NO EVENTS OBSERVED.


REGION FLARE STATISTICS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------

                C   M   X     S   1   2   3   4   Total   (%)
               --  --  --    --  --  --  --  --    ---  ------
Uncorrellated: 0   0   0     0   0   0   0   0    000  ( 0.0)

 Total Events: 000 optical and x-ray.


EVENTS WITH SWEEPS AND/OR OPTICAL PHENOMENA FOR THE LAST UTC DAY
----------------------------------------------------------------

 Date   Begin  Max   End  Xray  Op Region  Locn    Sweeps/Optical Observations
------  ----  ----  ----  ----  -- ------ ------   ---------------------------
                            NO EVENTS OBSERVED.

NOTES:
     All times are in Universal Time (UT).  Characters preceding begin, max,
     and end times are defined as:  B = Before,  U = Uncertain,  A = After.
     All times associated with x-ray flares (ex. flares which produce
     associated x-ray bursts) refer to the begin, max, and end times of the
     x-rays.  Flares which are not associated with x-ray signatures use the
     optical observations to determine the begin, max, and end times.

     Acronyms used to identify sweeps and optical phenomena include:

          II        = Type II Sweep Frequency Event
          III       = Type III Sweep
          IV        = Type IV Sweep
          V         = Type V Sweep
          Continuum = Continuum Radio Event
          Loop      = Loop Prominence System,
          Spray     = Limb Spray,
          Surge     = Bright Limb Surge,
          EPL       = Eruptive Prominence on the Limb.


**  End of Daily Report  **

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

Date: 4 Jun 94 01:41:34 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews![e-mail]
Subject: General Class Testing in Chicago???
To: [e-mail]

David M. Barley
[e-mail]
University of Chicago


    I am now a student here in Chicago (originally from California).  I recieved
my Novice Class when I was 12, about five years ago.  Now that I am a little
older--ok, so a lot older--I can understand the material for the General and
higher classes.  I know a lot has changed in terms of the classes, but i am
sure that the General Class still exists--right?  What I would like are some
names of stores that carry HAM stuff, like manuals and equipment and study
guides and morse code tapes, etc.  I live in Hyde Park and have not
seen anything around here.  Also, what places around here offer courses and
opportunities to take the different tests.

    I would appreciate e-mail since it is much easier for me to get!  Thanks in
advance!

Dave
KB6NER

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 20:49:04 GMT
From: newsgate.melpar.esys.com!melpar![e-mail]
Subject: Legal Protections for Hams
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Peter E. Goodmann) writes:

>On a VERRRRRY loosly related subject, how about eliminating the
>"industrial exemption" clause in your state's engineering registration law?
>These exemptions, which most if not all states have, allow unlicensed
>"engineers (who may not even have any engineering education or experience)
>to practice as engineers as long as they only design manufactured goods. Would
>you allow an unlicensed physician, who can only kill one person at a time to
>practice medicine?  How abount an unlicensed automtive "engineer" who could
>kill many people with a single mistake?

     One of the arguments against this suggestion is that a PE license is
no guarantee that an engineer will do safe, quality engineering work
and never make a mistake.  All the industrial exemption does is allow
a company to accept responsibility for its products in lieu of an
individual employee (i.e., engineer).  Therefore, the employee does not
require a license and the company assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that he/she is properly trained and all liability if he/she designs a
poor or unsafe product which is a danger to the public welfare.

     On the other hand, the private engineering practitioner must have
a license because he/she is directly responsible when something goes
awry.  But regarding physicians, even licensed physicians sometimes
make mistakes, so what does the license prove?  It doesn't prove
competence, it merely proves that the individual had, at the time of
licensing, enough knowledge to be judged competent by a review board.
But "being judged" competent isn't the same as actually "being
competent."

     What about the fact that, in many states, a PE license makes
NO REFERENCE to the particular engineering discipline which is the
licensee's field of competence?  Does this mean that a PE who's
area of expertise is EE can sign off on a blueprint for a bridge
because he/she is a PE?  If that's true, I'd rather put my trust
in a company that someone waving a piece of paper.....

     No flames intended here, BTW; in fact, I agree that a PE license
is a good and useful thing.  I fear, however, that industry and some
of the professional societies have conspired to create a situation
whereby "going back" to licensing all engineers will be impossible to
achieve.  If only one state does it, then industry will just pack up
and move to a state that doesn't do it (and be welcomed with open
arms!).  Ergo, it would be necessary to create a national law
(Ugh!  Just what we need!) requiring that all engineers be licensed;
otherwise, it will never happen.

     The first three pargraphs above are sort of "Devil's Advocate"
statements which probably only scratch the surface of arguments
which would rear up in opposition to your suggestion.....

       * Paul H. Bock, Jr. K4MSG  * Senior Systems Engineer
(|_|)  * E-Systems/Melpar Div.    * Telephone: [phone] x2062
 | |)  * 7700 Arlington Blvd.     * Internet: [e-mail]
       * Falls Church, VA 22046   * Mailstop: N301

 "Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 22:08:51 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!rcsuna.gmr.com!kocrsv01![e-mail]
Subject: Legal Protections for Hams
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Goodmann) writes:
> [...]
>On a VERRRRRY loosly related subject, how about eliminating the
>"industrial exemption" clause in your state's engineering registration law?
>These exemptions, which most if not all states have, allow unlicensed
>"engineers (who may not even have any engineering education or experience)
>to practice as engineers as long as they only design manufactured goods. Would
>you allow an unlicensed physician, who can only kill one person at a time to
>practice medicine?  How abount an unlicensed automtive "engineer" who could
>kill many people with a single mistake?
>

I'm not very comfortable with the concept of "licensing" people to do work.

If somebody is good at programming and I think that person is capable and
responsible, I should be able to get computer programs from that person
regardless of whether a license to practice has been issued.

(Now change computers to people and read that paragraph again:)

If somebody is good at medicine and I think that person is capable and
responsible, I should be able to get medical care from that person
regardless of whether a license to practice has been issued.

However, I'd be very happy if some trustworthy organization had a set of
standards for "certifying" people.  If my doctor friend were certified by,
say, the A.M.A. as a capable general practicioner, that would be great.
Imagine the A.M.A.'s "public service" announcements:  "Make sure you're
being treated by an A.M.A.-certified physician!"  Malpractice insurance
providers could base their rates on levels of certification.

And the S.A.E. could certify people as skilled automotive engineers without
some regulatory body preventing "unlicensed" people from working.  A company
might choose not to hire an "uncertified worker", but government regulations
shouldn't have to enter into it.

=============================================================================
Alan Anderson                || If they put a bunch of cattle in orbit,
(Ham Radio WB9RUF)           || would it be the herd shot 'round the world?
My views may not necessarily be those of Delco Electronics or its management.

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

Date: 3 Jun 1994 16:17:46 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!ornews.intel.com!ornews.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: RFD:Radio repair rip-off??
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Revkin) writes:
>I'd like to get the groups opinion.  Keep in mind while I know some
>radio theory, I'm no repair person.  Question:  I decided to try
>to get my original transceiver a Kenwood TS 520 back on the air.
>In trying to tune up, there was basically no power output.  So I
>left it off a a local repair shop and told the owner I though it might
>well need new finals and alignment.  He charged me a $45 "bench fee"
>which would not be refundable but would be credited toward the repairs,
>and bascially sat on the set for a couple of weeks...
stuff deleted...
>   Perhaps I should have been more "aware" of the potential for losing
>my money.  My questions are:  (1)  shouldn't I have expected them to
>have at least opened the set up for the $45; (2)  could the repairs
>really be expected to get into that range, assuming the worst.

Yes and Yes.  But you did accept the non-refundable terms when you left
the set.  If I were you I just wouldn't go back there again.
The last time I looked, it was $75 in this area just to take a looksee
for an estimate.  In the repair business an "estimate" often involves
indentifying the problem which is really most of the work.  Many consumer
customers will complain about a $100 repair bill to replace a 10 cent
capacitor.  They don't give a rat's rear that it may have taken hours of
troubleshooting to find the bad part.  If the repair technician is good
enough to find bad capacitors in a couple of minutes then they can and
will make more money somewhere well away from consumer electronics.
All repair shops now seem to have some kind of gestation period before
they will even look at something.  2-3 weeks is minimum usually.  This
and the high prices should convince hams that it is well worth the
trouble to at least try fixing something themselves.  Hams are especially
lucky because most rigs, new and used, come with schematics and even well
written circuit descriptions and repair/alignment procedures.  Other
consumer electronics is getting very hard to find documentation for.  The
manufacturers will tell you that the information is proprietary and you
either send it to their repair station or junk it.
The moment you bring your rig to a repair shop you cross the line from
experimenter/tinkerer to a full fledged appliance operator.  Go ahead
and try to fix it.  Its probably not the tubes or alignment if there is
no transmitter output at all.  Check the driver stage for output first
and work your way back to the oscillator from there.  Oh, and check for
all voltages present of course.



--
[e-mail]  WA7LDV

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

Date: 3 Jun 1994 16:31:02 -0400
From: newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com![e-mail]
Subject: Software
To: [e-mail]

I was wondering if anyone has a copy of software, to connect a mac to
a HAM radio.  I had heard about some Apple 2 programs for sale but I
was looking for a shareware or other type of mac program. Any help is
appreciated


Thanks,
Jeff

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

Date: 4 Jun 94 05:40:11 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!ve6mgs![e-mail]
Subject: WARNING: Potential Satellite Anomaly Warning (first post failed)
To: [e-mail]

                    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                      POTENTIAL SATELLITE ANOMALY WARNING

                           ISSUED: 04:00 UT, 03 JUNE

                    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


ATTENTION:

     Energetic electrons at greater than 2 MeV have climbed back to high
fluence levels.  Over the last month, electrons at these energy levels have
spent more time at high levels than in previous months.  During the period
from about 15 May to the end of May, electrons had fallen back to near-normal
levels, but continued to peak at moderate to high flux levels.  We presently
appear to be experiencing another recurrent enhancement in activity that has
persisted for each solar rotation since early this year.  High to very high
fluences are expected over the next week or two and may be followed by
periods of moderate to high fluence levels thereafter.


**  End of Warning  **

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

Date: 4 Jun 94 05:10:58 GMT
From: agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2sl510$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Ham Radio few problem

John Schmidt ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Mike,

: > If someone knowingly takes steps to key a repeater, even though
: > they have been told not to, then that is intentional interference.

: Can you support this statement by other than your own opinion, if the
: attempted usage of the repeater is not malicious?
: I would be very interested in any case where the FCC has held that attempting
: to use a repeater is considered "malicious interference". My personal
: contention is that PL today is not an access-restriction mechanism -- almost
: all new rigs include encoders and many open machines require PL to reduce
: interference from other services keying the repeater.

OK lets take this to the next step. Most technically proficient amateurs
today can decode touch-tone signals that are broadcast on the input
frequency. Most of you will now agree that touch-tone is no longer an
access-restriction for controlling or functioning an amateur repeater.
Surely by punching in the correct sequence on a touch-tone pad found on
any radio you are now controlling the repeater. You might even be able to
use the repeater for third party traffic. Where do you draw the line?

If PL is not an access restriction in the historic and common sense then
touch-tone is not sacred.

: > However, we're not speaking simply of actions, we're also speaking of
: > intent. Someone may choose to operate simplex on my repeater input,
: > and use the same PL as I have on my machine because it happens to be
: > the same as one they use elsewhere. Does this become intentional
: > interference?

: A good question, and I would be interested if you have any evidence from
: the FCC's rulings to support your contention that attempting to use the
: repeater is interference. According to the FCC, as you've already stated,
: there really is no such thing as "open" or "closed" repeaters. Anyone can
: shut off their repeater to anyone else. Where we differ is on the issue of
: whether it's malicious interference to try to operate within the rules on a
: "closed" machine that readily responds to all users (or all users with the
: proper PL).

Why do you want to shut off or deny the repeater group their pleasure?
Please remember that the repeater or 40 meter net is on a fixed
frequency. Your station has the ability to change frequency or bands at
the flick of the wrist. The Commission has ruled at length on these
issues in the many cases that have plaged nets and repeaters.

John, your intent is showing...have you forgotten the rule about good
amateur operating practice? This is the catch all... ;)

Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

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

Date: 3 Jun 1994 17:27:41 -0500
From: illuminati.io.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2s5sl8$[e-mail]>, <2sni5o$[e-mail]>yon1.
Subject : Re: IDing

In article <2sni5o$[e-mail]>,
Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE] <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't say "73s" or "73's"  It's "73".
>
>OK.  All those who care please hold up your hands....
>
>
Would you get annoyed if I called you "Freed" or "Frad"?
You might know what I mean, but it's annoying.

>Oh.  So you're a professional whistle blower and this is just another
>game for you.  Well, guess what, it's fourth quarter and most of the
>audience has already left the stadium.  Not many will hear, or care,
>about your next call.
>
>
Then why give a damn in the first place?
Contradiction.  I fail to see your point.

>
>Welcome to amateur radio.
>
>
Well, then, I'll be anal, too.  Why, if we're all anal and
act like we're the sole authority on amateur radio practice,
just think what we can do to standardize thing!
And, if we ever have an emergency and ham radio is needed
to make an autopatch call, I"ll just do it my way.

>
>There's a big difference here.  For starters, there is no rule anywhere
>that states that any of the above mentioned practices are illegal.
>Granted, they may be unsavory, but they're legit.  For example, you can
>note that a linebacker is ugly, but you can't flag him for it.  It's
>just not in the rules.  You just shrug your shoulders and go on about
>your business.
>
I never said they were illegal.  Conformity helps.
Standardized amateur practices make it easier to understand
the next guy.  But, since it's obvious the majority of old timers
think it's okay to do it any old way they damned well feel like  it,
I will stop bothering to do things the way I was taught.

Listen to repeaters from different cities.  Notice how different
they are when they talk?  God knows what I'm gonna hear on repeater
142.xxx.  When I say "KB8SGL monitoring", I might very well hear
"KB8SGL, how nice for you.  Call CQ on this repeater, please"
Yes, diversity and chaos.  How sweet it would be.


>Have a nice day.  And remember, it's a Hobby!
>
Yep.  It's a hobby.

Regulated by the government.

And since they can't figure things out, I'll stop trying.

--
................................................................................
Matt Rupert | 2984 Pheasant Run Drive Apt D | Jackson, MI 49202 | [phone]
        Security - Organization Meetings/Bookings - Professoinal Harasser
                  UNIX / Amateur Radio enthusiast KB8SGL

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

Date: 4 Jun 1994 01:05:38 -0700
From: btree.brooktree.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2si4ff$[e-mail]>, <2sid20$[e-mail]>, <2sn2im$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

In article <2sn2im$[e-mail]>,
Jay Maynard <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Fairness is never moot. Changing the rules and destroying people's investments
>is never fair.

The world and the rules are constantly changing.  No denying y'all were
pioneers up on 440, but now the settlers are here and we want chit-chat
channels for our 1/2 hour commutes.  Maybe it's time to move on to the
new frontier; that's what pioneers do!

>Jammed any repeaters lately?

No, we use jelly now.

--

Roger Bly
[e-mail]

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #621
******************************